Supplemental 12 and 13- Part 9 and 10 Evidence for Christianity Based on the Shroud of Turin

image0022b252842529

Enjoy the podcast:

Part 9 Audio Link =

https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental-12–Part-9-Evidence-for-Christianity-Based-on-the-Shroud-of-Turin-e2i251

Part 10 Audio Link =

https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental-13–Part-10-Evidence-for-Christianity-Based-on-the-Shroud-of-Turin-e2igao

 

PARTS 9 & 10– PODCAST INTRO SUMMARY (THE POWDER-RUBBING &/OR DUSTING TECHNIQUE):

In Parts 9 & 10 of our Shroud series, we shall be assessing the second major “Ordinary Artistic” mechanism- the Powder-Rubbing and/or Dusting technique.  This is our first umbrella category mechanism; which has a total of 3 major proponents or hypotheses that are associated under this type of image-forming technique.  The first such hypothesis is the Powder-Rubbing technique developed and advocated by Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell back in the early 1980’s, the second is the “Dusting Transfer Technique” developed by Drs. Emily Craig and Randall Bresee in the mid-1990’s and finally, the “Frottage Method” as advocated by Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli which made headlines around the world back in 2009.   As we shall see, some of these methods have been able to account for multiple MRF’s (in part at least), yet all fall short of the mark of being able to produce actual images that are anything close to what we have with the Shroud of Turin- shockingly some of the experts advocating these types of theories themselves even admit their failure in this regard.

Part 9 covers the introductions to each theory and how they each perform (or don’t perform) in relation to the first 4 “Minimal Relevant Features”.  Then in Part 10, we finish off our analysis of the final three “MRF’s” and give our overall conclusion of the utter improbability of such techniques to adequately account for the Shroud of Turin’s image formation.

Recommended Sources (for further study):

1.  Joe Nickell’s Original “Powder-Rubbing Method” (Pro-Sources):  For a general bio of Joe Nickell see here  = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nickell .  Also see several skeptical articles written by Nickell on the Shroud of Turin here = https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/fake_turin_shroud_deceives_national_geographic_author  &/OR here = https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/cnns_finding_jesus_disingenuous_look_at_turin_shroud/ & on the Blood here  = https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/turin_shroud_blood_still_fake/ .

There is also a YouTube video presentation by him which I also included in Parts 8 & 9 for the part about the Memo of 1389- this time watch the whole video where he describes various mechanisms and references his own as well = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FWjU3zHiQ .

2. CONTRA-JOE NICKELL SOURCES:  See the article entitled “UNSHROUDING JOE NICKELL” on p.3-7 from here  = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn065Jun91.pdf  OR see various experts discuss Nickell’s ignorance as well as including an article written by Joe Nickell himself here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn064Apr91.pdf .

3. CRAIG & BRESEE “DUSTING” SOURCES:  Here is the main article of their technique and reported experimental results here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/craig.pdf  (18 pages).  See also their article plus a Pro-Shroud expert’s critique entitled “A RESPONSE TO THE CRAIG-BRESEE THEORY”, here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn083Jun94.pdf   (by art expert Isabel Piczek on p.15-18).

4. LUIGI GARLASCHELLI SOURCES:  Here is Garlaschelli’s own website with a 1 page article supposedly describing in detail, his method = https://sites.google.com/site/luigigarlaschelli/shroudreproduction  (see also various pictures included in contrast to what we have with the Shroud of Turin, these images are best artistic duplicate images produced to date, yet being a “sort of” duplicate image is not good enough to claim it is an actual duplicate).  See the 1 page description here = file:///C:/Users/Dale/Downloads/howwastheshroudmade%20(1).pdf .

A scholarly Contra-Garlaschelli Source by Shroud expert Thibault Heimburger can be read here  = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf  (9-page detailed article with illustrations as well).

5. BONUS SKEPTICAL SHROUD SOURCES:  The Shroud Skeptic Chris has provided 4 different links on the Unbelievable Boards to support his skeptical agenda; I wasn’t planning on bringing some of them up until a future Podcast where it would be more appropriate to the topic at hand, but as I don’t want Skeptics to think I’m avoiding making them available for some nefarious purpose, I have chosen to put them up here and now for people to check out.  The first is McCrone’s website which I already provided in Part 7 & 8 Podcast sources ( here = http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin ), where it was appropriate to do so, but for general info enforcing some of the skeptical claims of people like Joe Nickell, see the Skeptical Shroud of Turin website here = http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud .  Also there is a good PowerPoint presentation covering various topics including ones we’ve covered in our class and which provides a skeptical response to them (completely unpersuasive, but at least they try) here = http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/schafersman_skeptics_view_of_shroud.pdf .  Finally also see an article addressing Roger’s invisible re-weave hypothesis (one of the proposals I gave to explain why the 1988 C-14 test gave the results it did and one I mention in Part 1, I personally don’t accept yet I do acknowledge there is some evidence suggesting the area the sample was taken from is non-representational for some reason, thus there is cause to doubt the reliability of the C-14 test based on this data we have even if we don’t think there was a patch invisibly re-woven onto that area of the Shroud- something is going on here)- anyways here is the article = http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm .

6 thoughts on “Supplemental 12 and 13- Part 9 and 10 Evidence for Christianity Based on the Shroud of Turin

  1. Then in Part 10, we finish off our analysis of the final three “MRF’s” and give our overall conclusion of the utter improbability of such techniques to adequately account for the Shroud of Turin’s image formation.

    Looks like you’re headed to an argument from ignorance conclusion. You wouldn’t need to eliminate all these naturalistic hypotheses if you had a solid positive miraculous hypothesis.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Looks like you’re headed to an argument from ignorance conclusion. ”

      He is. He just thinks that because he posits a god, it somehow justifies it in a way that makes it no longer an argument from ignorance. He doesn’t seem to really understand what the problem is or why it is a problem.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Dale’s gleeful admonishment of the “foolish skeptics” in the part 10 podcast is not a good sign for a less acerbic and ad hominem Dale whenever he returns from comment hiatus.

    Like

    1. I think this episode and a couple more have been recorded for a while already. So there is still hope. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close