>But what "scientific testing" has he claimed to do? In my experience, as an >investigator, he reports on the testing of others.
Unfortunately I don't have time today to look any references up, but I do recall seeing him mention various tests of different types he has done. Not like the experiments you mention (and not with the Shroud)... but more what would come under scientific methods of testing. Since I don't really have the references though, I'll just concede the point, as it's not terribly germane to the debate anyway. >I'm suggesting that discounting Nickell (especially discounting his entire >body of work) because of this is wrong, not that he's definitely right. I certainly did not say his entire body of work should be discounted...just that I look at it with a great deal more skepticism because of the gross inaccuracies he is showing in this case. >He's not an outlier (he's not fighting an >overwhelming consensus on this topic) That's where you are wrong. He certainly is not an outlier in terms of just being a skeptic of the shroud (certainly the majority of people that are not fully read up on it believe it's fake)...but once he gets into *scientific debate* about it being a medieval fraud, that's where he is really out on a limb by himself. There simply is no one else out there writing articles and making claims that all these talented and highly respected scientists are wrong. >the shroud is a controversial topic. >I don't think we're arguing about that. 'Course not. >So either Nickell (and McCrone) are so influential that they can generate >such controversy or there are serious questions. They are influential not because their work has validity...but as you are demonstrating yourself, a great many people want to believe and trust in what they write because it mirrors their own belief....so there is little choice but to debate it. Were the Shroud *not* such a controversial issue, I would not be surprised if they would go largely unnoticed as the typical lunatic fringe. >The lack of any history before then is also telling. There is only a lack of absolute, definitive history before then. There is actual a fair amount of information (art, literature, etc.) to trace the shroud back quite a considerable amount of time before then...it's just not anything that you can call definitive. But plenty to at least support the idea that its age goes back much further (in addition to the other more significant and verifiable information on age that we have.) >+) I see little evidence that convinces me of any timeline. The historic >evidence is telling, but not damning. The scientific evidence is >inconclusive and contentious. But you say yourself you lack the interest to find out more...and yet are making conclusions based on your own lack of information. Not what a good scientific skeptic should do. You say the scientific evidence is inconclusive...according to whom? Other than Nickell, find me one other scientist that disputes that the Carbon-14 dating was invalid and vanillin evidence of much greater age wrong. Both have already been independently corroborated. >(In fact these aren't mutually exclusive >since any forger could have wrapped a corpse to create the forgery if a case >is made that wrapping a corpse could generate the image). Right, as I mentioned in my last post, this may be a possible hypothesis to look at at some point. Again though, they would have had to get a corpse with the exact wounds and treatment of the biblical Christ to do this. There is also a theory that the man was not actually dead, just in a coma...and thus later came to which explains why he was removed from the shroud. There's definitely no lack of crazy theories without having to resort to ones that are totally untenable. ;-) >+) With the lack of access the testing needed to answer any of these >questions won't be forthcoming. Probably true for the time being at least...but I still look forward to following what they *are* able to answer. The current hypothesis that the image may have formed from a reaction between the body and the starch on the linen is quite compelling...but far from being a testable theory yet. >Still, anybody can be unreasonably stubborn, even a researcher >as good as Nickell (yes, I said it). ;^) Sure...and there's no doubt that there is a "lunatic fringe" on the "pro-authentication" side as well. Some of the theories that came out to try and explain away the Carbon-14 dating were pretty far-fetched (and easily disregarded by the reputable scientists that worked on it.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250324 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
