Enjoy the podcast:
– PODCAST INTRO –
Well folks, its finally here! Round 1 of the big showdown between Dale (Pro-Shroud) and his nemesis Alan (the Shroud skeptic). Quite obviously, Alan and I are not actually nemeses, we both have strong views on the evidence from the Shroud of Turin and we both passionately believe each other is wrong about it. The following discussion is an attempt to try and discern the truth and address each other’s claims in that regards, it is not an exercise of polemics or ad hominem attacks but a sincere attempt to present both sides on the Shroud evidence. As a debate, neither of us will be able to present fully our case and both of us have presented our arguments more fully elsewhere (me, in my Podcasts and sources and Alan in his critiques on the Unbelievable? Forums), so one should not take these discussions as the be all and end all of the matter. An honest seeker is responsible to look deeper into these matters.
Anyways, there is far too much to include in one show and thus Alan and I have agreed to break up the discussions to cover various topics in each debate. In the first debate/discussion we shall focus on Alan’s contention that the Shroud can demonstrated to be Medieval; the main question for the debate is- “Can the Shroud be Proven to Medieval?”. It is important to note that on the main topic of discussion in this first debate at least, it is Alan that is making the claim and thus him that bears the burden of proof, not me.
The topics that will be covered in Round 1 include;
i) Non-Relevant Bonus- Alan’s attempt to explain the difference between pseudo-science and qualified scientists and his appraisal of STURP as being pseudo-science conducted by “religious fanatics” whose findings and conclusions from 1978-1981 have no credibility in the scientific community.
ii) Non-Relevant Bonus- What is the Relevance of the Dating to Begin With? Even if the Shroud is Medieval, who cares!
iii) Pro-Medieval Evidence #1- The Memorandum of Bishop D’Arcis (1389 A.D.).
iv) Pro-Medieval Evidence #2- The Archeological Evidence from the Pilgrim’s Badges/Medallion (1349-1356 A.D.) & the Historical Background Knowledge Argument.
v) Pro-Medieval Evidence #3- The 1988 C-14 Dating (this will include Alan correcting the record and defending Harry Gove against my critiques of him in my Part 1 Podcast and perhaps Alan’s take on the Neutron Flux/Absorption Hypothesis as a proposal explain the results).
Enjoy the show 😊
Recommended Sources (for further study):
1. Attacking/Defending STURP;
For a list of the credible scientists and experts involved in STURP in 1978 and beyond see = https://www.shroud.com/78team.htm . Also there is another list in the detailed 66-page operational plan and methodology employed by STURP see here =https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/STURP%20Test%20Plan%201978%20OCRsm.pdf (see p.16-17 for the list of team members and their role in STURP).
For access to 20 or more of STURP peer-reviewed journal articles based on their findings and conclusions during STURP see here =https://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm .
Finally, flor the official conclusion reached by STURP in their 1981 Final Report, see here = https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm .
Additionally, see proof that McCrone was the editor of his own journal where he published his results (lack of proper peer-review unlike STURP scientists and experts) = https://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/72/the-microscope-journal . Here are some secular sources on what it means for something to be peer-reviewed and how to identify journals as such = https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review & https://www.angelo.edu/services/library/handouts/peerrev.php & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review . Also, here is a definition of “pseudoscience”, contrary to Alan STURP does not fit that definition unlike the 1988 C-14 leaders, see here =https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience .
2. Pro-Medieval Evidence #1- Bishop D’Arcis’ Memorandum of 1389;
1389 MEMORANDUM OF PIERRE D’ARCIS SOURCES: Here is a link to the actual English translation of the Memo itself = https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html.
i) Skeptical Side: Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell presented this evidence along with several supporting lines of evidence to buttress his argument that the Shroud is an artistic medieval fake, see first 20 mins or so here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FWjU3zHiQ.
ii) Pro-Shroud Side; For the counter-response by actual qualified historians (includes the various surrounding documents overlooked in my Podcast audio), see the article entitled “Deconstructing the “Debunking” of the Shroud” (this is a reply to the Shroud skeptical article above by Gary Vikan, so you can see the other articles as well) here = https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article . Also, see an 11 page article on the Lirey Controversy (Memo) and background information here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part5.pdf .
iii) General Info based on Timeline Data (for surrounding circumstances around the Memo); Finally, here is a timeline/chronological source giving the surrounding background knowledge related to this 14th century controversy, see here = https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/07/chronology-of-turin-shroud-fourteenth.html .
iv) A NEW Source (Not Included in Part 7 Podcast Sources) = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n55part3.pdf . It explains the mistaken pseudo-history done by French historian and bibliographer, Canon Ulysse Chevalier.
3. Pro-Medieval Evidence #2- The Archeological Evidence from the Pilgrim’s Badge/Medallion & Historical Background Knowledge Argument;
Firstly, here are a couple sources about the Medallion and what it is = http://www.sindonology.org/papers/clunySouvenir.shtml . & https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/comparison-of-lirey-badge-cluny-medal-depicting-the-shroud-of-turin-in-the14th-century-with-the-1865-forgeais-drawing-for-open-discussion/ .
Also for a list of logical fallacies (including the ones that Alan employs in this argument such as circular reasoning/begging the question and guilt by association) see here = https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/; for Circular reasoning/Begging the Question specifically see = https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question .
Finally for the Association Fallacy (including the Guilt by Association form) see here =https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy .
4. Pro-Medieval Evidence #3- The 1988 C-14 Dating;
NEW SOURCES (NOT INLCUDED IN PART 1 PODCAST): Some new sources on the problems with the C-14 not included in Part 1 Podcast see here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf (contra Invisible Re-weave) , Pro Invisible Re-Weave = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf , & the two Peer-Reviewed Articles supporting the Re-Weave of the cloth that Barrie Schwortz mentioned in the prior week’s Podcast = ROGERS, Raymond N. – “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” [January 20, 2005] Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) pp.189-194. (Includes 5 illustrations). = http://www.sindone.info/ROGERS-3.PDF & BENFORD, M. Sue and MARINO, Joseph G. – Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud – Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4, [July-August 2008] = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf .
Finally, see this with general info on C-14 (all issues) = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ohiomaloneypaper.pdf .
SOME OLD SOURCES (FROM PART 1 PODCAST):
- b) Peer-reviewed Nature journal article on the C-14 results (1989)- published by the 1988 Radiocarbon scientists themselves = https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm .
- c) Rob Rucker’s Website (with various written and video sources under the Research and Conference-2017 tabs respectively, including ones related to the C-14 Dating Problem) = http://www.shroudresearch.net/home.html .
1. Good Science, Bad Science, and the Shroud of Turin
Global Distinguished Professor of Chemistry
A lecture looking at the destinguishing features of good science versus bad science with particular reference to the work carried out by Walter McCrone on the Turin Shroud.
2. The Shroud of Turin: It’s Just Bad Science
It’s obviously fake
David Kyle Johnson Ph.D
3. Chemistry in the face of belief
Good summary of the C14 dating and subsequent questioning of the data.
4. Here it is – the original report on the C14 analysis in Nature
5. Radiocarbon Dating – Reliable but Misunderstood Dating Technique