NBCs bullsh*t report on the Shroud of Turin.

[edhopper]

Today on "Today", deep thinker Matt Lauer did a segment on the silly Shroud of Turin.
Now this bit of foolishness was shown to be a Middle Age forgery over 20 years ago using something called science. But here on Good Friday, to placate the mass of believers, they drag out a group who still studies the Shroud, with all kinds of excuses why the carbon test, done by three different labs in three different countries, were somehow tainted. Contaminated so, that the errors produced the exact same dating. Yeah sure.
Then the bubble headed gal that did the taped section said "and of course no one has ever shown how this could have been faked. Hey, try Google sometime, Joe Nickle of the Center for Scientific Inquiry, showed exactly how to fake the Shroud years ago.
Here's the kicker, egg head Matt, after the report just said there is as yet NO EVIDENCE that any of the original dating is wrong, asks this idiot from the "Shroud Study Group" if they have found Jesus' DNA on the Shroud.
Matt, it's a fake and there is no blood on the Shroud. Could you at least have on one voice of reason to counter your bullshit story.

BTW, if they show themselves to be so lazy and gullible on a story where the actual facts are so readily available, How can we expect their reporting on matters of greater import, like the war or the election, to be any better.

[acmavm]

1. So nice of you to post this bitter screed on a day that means to

much to so many.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. Bitter?

"Dumb All Over" -- FZ

In this book it says to Burn and Destroy!

[MUAD_DIB]

7. I guess that faith outweighs science to some.

[On the Road]

8. Hadn't Thought of the Timing

I do agree, however, that that sounds like a bullshit report. You don't even carbon tests to show the shroud is a fake. It really reflects badly on the electronic media.

[cosmik debris]

9. You can't suspend the truth

Just because some people prefer to hear falsehoods.

[Hugabear]

10. It's relevant if NBC Today is perpetuating a fraud

As the OP states, the Shroud of Turin has been debunked numerous times, yet some people refuse to listen to reason and science.

Were you this upset when we were mocking the Creation Museum? Or is it okay to ridicule fundie beliefs, but not something that you hold dear?

[dmallind]

14. screed?

Since when is calling people on easily falsifiable bullshit supplied by a supposedly reliable mainstream media outlet "screed"?

[Gman]

15. Some people just can't stand it that people have faith

there's some kind of deep-seated issue there that manifests itself with this type of screed.

FOr the record, the authenticity of the Shroud has never been disproven or proven. It remains a mystery. It has been demonstrated both that it could be authentic and it is not.

Don't you love it how people like to use words like "bullshit" and "thoroughly debunked" and other superlatives to make it sound like their opinion is the final say.

[cosmik debris]

16. And some people just can't stand it

when the whole world doesn't share their superstition.

The shroud is only a mystery to those who deny science.

[Gman]

24. I have enough college hours in sciences

having been a chemistry major at one time that I know science. The scientific facts are that the Shroud has neither been proven authentic, nor disproven.

And there are those of us who will use phrases like "I disagree that..." instead of the crap the OP has in it. There's nothing scientific about the OP. The OP was someone venting because people are celebrating Good Friday and they can't stand it for whatever deep-seated issue(s).

[cosmik debris]

27. According to Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1998

"radiocarbon tests have dated the shroud to 1260-1390 A. D.,"

http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm

But I guess that a former chemistry major would know better.

[struggle4progress]

34. I have never been much interested in any claims about the "Shroud" but

as a practical scientific question it is reasonable to ask how reliable a result is to be expected from a radiocarbon assay applied to a cloth that has been repeatedly handled over some centuries, and one can similarly imagine some contamination of it by an attempt to very carefully launder it at some time with (say) a mild soap

Presumably the expert radio-carbon daters know something about the errors that might be introduced in this manner, but I haven't any links on it

[edhopper]

29. OP here

I don't give a rats ass whether it's Good Friday or not. I saw a bullsh*t story on the Today show, which choose today to air this crap and did not give air to anyone who voiced a single opposing viewpoint and I called them on it.
So all that stuff I sited about three different unconnected labs doing blind carbon dating on the shroud cloth and ALL showing it is less than a thousand years old is not scientific.
What, pray tell, would you consider scientific evidence?
If the fact that the Shroud is a Middle Age fraud somehow ruins your Good Friday, maybe your faith isn't as strong as you think.

[skepticscott]

30. Have you read Walter McCrone's work on the Shroud?

It showed without any question or equivocation that the Shroud is a painting. There are red ochre pigment particles in all of the image areas and nowhere else. There are vermillion pigment particles in all of the "blood" areas, and nowhere else. Any explanation of the Shroud that does not account for these facts is self-serving, religious horseshit.

[immoderate]

37. Can you get your tuition money back?

You apparently got no value from those courses.

--IMM

[Realityhack]

38. Example of an unscientific statement:

"There's nothing scientific about the OP."
You have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence for that claim. Many people including the OP have demonstrated that while the original post did not contain the full reasons for the statments therin, the statemens are in fact grounded in solid science.

"The OP was someone venting because people are celebrating Good Friday and they can't stand it for whatever deep-seated issue(s)."
Care to present some evidence to back that up?
Seems to me NBC aired a story and the OP responded to it on the day of airing. What evidence to you have to support your position?

[Realityhack]

39. BTW we are still waiting for that evidence.

Or perhapses a retraction.

"The scientific facts are that the Shroud has neither been proven authentic, nor disproven."
If it has never been disproven please provide the evidence you base that claim on given the evidence that has been presented demonstrating rather conclusively that the shroud can not possibly be authentic.

[Realityhack]

40. Still waiting... chirp chirp n/t

[atreides1]

19. Nothing wrong with having faith

But shouldn't that faith be in the deity you believe in and not a piece of cloth that may or may not have been worn as a burial shroud?

Putting one's faith in God has to be more important then in a material item, doesn't it?

And if that faith is strong then nothing anyone can say should be able to sway those who truly believe.

[edhopper]

22. The Shroud has been proven to an

absolute fake. It has been carbon dated to the Middle Ages and to have pigment and not human blood on it.
There is as much evidence for the Shroud as there is for Creationism.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. The classic equivocation of total bullshit with credible evidence.

Your argument is made in almost exactly the same terms with the liars attempting to position 'intelligent design' as a valid alternative to evolution.

[Gman]

25. My "argument is made in almost exactly the same terms

with the liars ...blah, blah, blah?" Do you even understand the false logic in your statement? I'd explain but I'd probably end up feeling like I was trying to explain logic to a freeper.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Yes by all means please explain exactly

what the credible scientific evidence is for the authenticity of the shroud as an ancient relic that existed at the purported time of the crucifiction. Absent that evidence please explain how this is anything other than a fraud, given the credible and testable evidence that the article in question is not anywhere near that old. Absent such evidence your claim that it is neither proved authentic nor proved fraudulent is approximately equivalent to the arguments tirelessly presented in favor of other specious bullshit, such as intelligent design, where conjecture and supposition untainted by actual testable and credible evidence are raised to the same level as well thought out scientific theories validated through testable and credible evidence. I'm fascinated that you indend to actually defend your position.

[Realityhack]

31. If that is your position please 'clarify' the record

"the authenticity of the Shroud has never been disproven or proven. It remains a mystery. It has been demonstrated both that it could be authentic and it is not."

If this is your position please back it up by showing some evidence to support it.

By the way. If read literally your last sentence from the above quote is technically correct. Some tests where done that concluded that it was possible that the shroud was authentic (that is they did not rule it out) and others definitively ruled it out.
for example if we tested it to see if it was a polyester blend it would not be. This does not rule out the possibility of authenticity. Other tests such as the blind carbon dating and pigment tests do rule out its authenticity unless you know something we do not.

[mwb970]

17. The "screed" was not about Easter.

It was about the Turin Shroud Hoax and the pandering reaction of the media by presenting a misleading story about it on this particular day. The meaning of Easter is intact for those who consider it important.

[edhopper]

21. It was NBC that

decide to air this BS on this day. This is not an anti-Catholic post. It is an anti-bullsh*t post. I did not refer to any religious person in my OP. Only the so-called experts NBC used for their garbage report.

[varkam]

32. I've noted that some individuals take...

any hostility to anything remotely related to religion as a defacto attack on religion itself.

[OlderButWiser]

43. Did you catch your mistake?

It's rather humorous.

"So nice of you to post this bitter screed on a day that means to (too) much to so many."

[ZombieHorde]

45. screed

Awesome pun.

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. You gotta believe!

I agree with everything I ever see on television.
Just nod your head and everything will be OK.
Why fight it?

[rurallib]

4. Good weekend to sell that potato chip with Jesus face

By the way - is there anyone here who knows what Jesus really looked like?

[Hugabear]

13. Or the Virgin Mary, for that matter

I need to start paying more attention to stuff, I bet I could make a fortune if I found something that I could claim looked like either one of them.

After all, all you have to do is claim that something looks like something, and people will believe it.

[rurallib]

35. "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the

American people" PT Barnum.

[Tesha]

44. He probably looked like a Palestinian. Today, he'd be in Gitmo. (NT)

[LynzM]

5. Oh, geez.

Yeah, I watched one of the shows where they walked through the debunking, and that was at least 5 years ago... I can't believe this is still being tossed around. Science? Who needs that? :sarcasm:

[rocktivity]

6. I thought it was no more than 1400 years old.

I find it hard to believe there would be 600-year margin of error.

:shrug:
rocknation

[Silent3]

28. No more than 1400 years? Hmmm...

Maybe it's the Shroud of Mohammad (pictured here: @O<-< ). :evilgrin:

[varkam]

33. That's naughty.

:rofl:

[flyingfysh]

11. it was known to be a fake back then

A bishop had a statement from the forger himself.

[whistle]

12. "You will never convince a snorer that he snores" -- Mark Twain

<snip>
October 31, 1988
Don't Call the Shroud of Turin a Forgery


To the Editor:

Your article on carbon 14 tests done on the Shroud of Turin (Oct. 14) contends they have shown that the linen shroud long believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus is a ''medieval forgery.'' Nothing of the sort has been shown. All that has been demonstrated is that the shroud could not have been the burial cloth. We know only what the shroud is not.

How the shroud came to bear the likeness of a man wounded as Jesus was is still unknown. As an unexplained, mysterious phenomenon, the shroud can still serve as a source of inspiration to Christians.

Implicit in the word ''forgery'' is an intent to deceive by presenting a fabricated artifact or legal instrument as genuine. In so doing, a forger realizes an illegitimate gain or unfairly deprives another of rights. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery, as was Piltdown Man.

There is as yet no evidence upon which to base the claim that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery. This remains a question to be resolved by historical and scientific investigation. Until then, we must suspend judgment. JAMES P. MCGOVERN New York, Oct. 14, 1988

The writer is a member of the Society of Jesus.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DD133FF932A05753C1A96E948260

[Myrina]

18. I thought it was Jacques deMolay's image ...

... one of the "last" Templars who pissed off a whole bunch of religious folk and was supposedly tortured & killed in the same manner as the alleged-Jesus was, circa 1310. Don't recall which book I read that in - either 'The Sign and The Seal' or 'The Hiram Key'.

:shrug:

[Waya]

48. Nobody knows who it is......or why it is..........

But, to me at least, it makes more sense that the image is that of Jaques DeMolay.

[Submariner]

20. The shroud was just a medieval Handi-Wipe, whats the fuss all about?

[struggle4progress]

36. "... about forty shrouds .. have been alleged to be the true shroud of Jesus ..."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro1.htm

... the shroud was condemned, very early in its strange history, as a fake. In 1389 the bishop of Troyes, in France, sent a report about the shroud to Pope Clement VII. It began: The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the Dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, . . . he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb ... Pope Clement declined to suppress the shroud entirely, but in 1390 he imposed restrictions on any future exhibitions of it. There would be no ceremonies or candles or incense or guard of honor, he decreed, and each exposition would have to include the announcement that "it is not the true Shroud of Our Lord but a painting or picture made in the semblance or representation of the shroud" ... http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/turinasc.htm

... John Paul II proposed at the time of his pilgrimage to the Shroud, on the 24th of May 1998 ... Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet ... The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers ... http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/110.asp

[greyl]

41. I like the theory that Leonardo DaVinci created it. nt

[moobu2]

42. A big hint that the shroud is a fake is

the image depicts a midevil European and not a 2,000 year old Middle Eastern man. Another clue is that if it were even a remote possibility of this being authentic, the Catholic church would be promoting it for political purposes and monetary gain etc…

[smoogatz]

46. Excellent post.

Tells you something about the current state of our "objective" news media.

Here's a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xstcPnYUky4

[edhopper]

47. Thanks for the link.

In the first seconds. the reporter says; "But tests done with carbon dating show it wasn't that old."
Wouldn't it have been great if she said; "So it is obviously a fake and there is no real story here. Back to you Matt."

[pegleg]

49. Are all atheists as bigoted as they are here or is that just a DU thing?

[edhopper]

50. Could you quote some of this "bigotry"

you are referring to?

[pegleg]

53. I merely asked a question. Generally

when one group of people is set up for ridicule at the expense of others , then its bigotry. certainly ther is nothing wrong with criticizing the shroud of Turin. Quite likely it has been faked.

[greyl]

54. No, you didn't merely ask a question. Do all believers post bullshit?

You said athiests here are bigoted and asked if all of them are.

Then, you were merely asked to provide evidence of the bigotry you were speaking of.
So far, no dice.

[smoogatz]

59. There's a difference between ridiculing a group of people

and ridiculing their false beliefs. False beliefs should be ridiculed, especially if they're foisted off on the public as universal and eternal truths. There should be a price to pay for those who commit that sort of intellectual fraud: perhaps it would happen less if we were more willing to turn the water-cannons of ridicule on the perpetrators.

To save us both the trouble, let me predict that next you're going to complain about my intellectual bigotry, and I'm going to reply that there's no such thing; that we all ought to learn to discern between objective truth and falsehood, good ideas and bad. The ability to tell the difference does not make you a bigot.

[pegleg]

60. your insinuation of false beliefs will never be proven or disproven this side of death.

In short it is impossible to win a religious argument because what believers hold as evidence, non-believers hold as a lack of evidence. I could very easily call your beliefs false and have as much physical proof to back it up as you do agaist my beliefs.

[edhopper]

62. Except if we look

at the subject of this thread. Those who say the Shroud is a fake have all the factual evidence in their favor. Those who believe it is the funeral cloth of Jesus have nothing to back them up. And as far as I know we're still this side of death.

[pegleg]

65. Actually, there are a multitude of stories about the shroud and

scientific findings both ways. But then again it doesn't matter - however there is much reason to believe that revisionist histury is being attempted here, but who knows.

[smoogatz]

66. There are no "scientific findings" that show that the shroud is anything

but a medieval fake. Its known provenance suggests that, as well. The fact that believers persist in attempting to muddy the waters doesn't amount to both sides canceling each other out. There's certainly not one legitimate shred of evidence that supports the theory that the shroud is the product of some supernatural event.

[pegleg]

69. Actually there never has been a concensus on the age of the shroud.

Personally I don't know and care one way or the other. It's not important. Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm
whatever your beliefs or lack of them - peace

[trotsky]

70. Interesting you should bring up old Ray.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific, despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud.
...
The methods Rogers cites--observations of linen-production technology, chemistry of fibers, and amount of vanillin in lignin--are, unlike radiocarbon dating, useless in accurate and precise age determination. At most, they would allow suggestions of age, and suggestions are notoriously unreliable and subject to bias, which is the case here.

For someone who claims not to care either way, you sure are putting forth an effort to present the fraudlent side of things.

[pegleg]

71. Then you know that he is not the only one to hold these views

Others have made note of certain features common around 2000 years ago and that fact coupled with the innaccuracies of carbon dating at pinpointing such a relatively recent and specific time suggest that the shroud may indeed be 2000 years old. But, really that's not my point. Whether or not it is the burial cloth of Jesus, or for that matter anyone else, is not an article of faith for me. Now there are a few potato chips with the image of Jesus on them that I do think are real -Just kidding.

[trotsky]

72. Of course he isn't.

Just as there are millions who believe in a literal 6-day creation or a global flood.

But the same amount of evidence supports any of those positions. I.e., NONE. You're fooling yourself if you think there is ANY rational justification for believing this shroud to be legit. Not even the margin of error of carbon dating helps.

Even if you claim to personally not care, you're doing a great disservice to science, rationality, and the intellectual growth of our species by giving this bullshit any credence whatsoever.

[pegleg]

73. Spoken like a true atheist. I may not agree with you , but I do

respect your opinion.

[trotsky]

74. Spoken like a true humanist, I'd say.

Placing value on human reason and observation over ancient stories. But if you want to defend the fundies and their delicate beliefs, that's your choice.

[pegleg]

75. Actually , I am a harsh critic of the fundies and have been branded

as such. I enjoy challenging any extremist positions which would blindly force their views and ideals upon others and displaying the attitude of tolerance be damned. that includes the left and the right.

[trotsky]

76. Oh yes, the extremist positions like "All torture is wrong."

or "A woman has complete control over her own body." I remember your failed attempts to frame your opponents as "extremists" last time.

Should we tolerate those who think torture is OK? Or should we speak out against it, and oppose it in any form whatsoever?

Should we tolerate those who want to make the 10 commandments (or at least their version of such) the supreme law of the land?

I guess one is a Democratic Fundamentalist Extremist if they don't want those things, huh?

Well, at least the biblical literalists can count on you as an ally.

[pegleg]

77. There you go using that word again.

[Realityhack]

81. "But, really that's not my point." - Actualy that IS the point.

You made the claim that their is legitimate scientific dispute as to wither the shroud is a forgery. Regardless of your personal position you made that claim and can't back it up.

[Realityhack]

80. What?

Are you seriously claiming there is any legitimate scientific doubt that the shroud is a fake?
Are you seriously holding up this 'study' as your evidence of such a dispute?

[smoogatz]

67. I don't have beliefs.

I have opinions which are subject to change given compelling new evidence. And I'm certainly not trying to win any "religious arguments." That said, I am getting a bit sick of theists shoving their imaginary friends in my face and then calling me a bigot when I object. The burden of proof for the relative truth of a given belief system falls on the believer: since when did magical thinking become the default intellectual position?

[Realityhack]

79. 100% wrong.

We are not talking about wither some form of god exists. We are talking about wither a specific historical object is a forgery.

What is your basis for claiming that we can't know if it is this side of death?

[trotsky]

51. People failing to genuflect to your special beliefs is not bigotry.

Sorry.

[pegleg]

52. How do you know what I believe?

[trotsky]

55. I know you believe there are atheist "fundamentalists"

which tells me plenty.

[pegleg]

56. I thought you said you were offended by that term? why are you

using it? I prefer to use the word "radical". It's much more generic and descriptive.

[trotsky]

57. Why do you think I put it in quotes?

Radical's good. Lots of interesting radical atheists in history. Susan B. Anthony, Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Gloria Steinem, H.L. Mencken, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mark Twain, just to name a tiny few. Glad to see you have rejected the insulting term.

[pegleg]

58. Agnostic yes, atheist - maybe some of them. radical definitely.

Great people - very. It's not important what their religious beliefs were - they are still great people.

[Realityhack]

78. What are your grounds for that question?

Please let us know what activities you see as being bigoted. Specific examples would help.

[Taverner]

61. Yeah I saw that - I was thinking "Didn't they debunk this a few years back?"

But people who wanna believe will believe, despite evidence.

[skepticscott]

63. A few years back?

Heck, the damn thing was debunked back in the 14th century when it first appeared. It was also debunked by the first Shroud committee back in the 70's, and the second one in the 80's. It's been debunked so many times you'd think there would be no bunk left, but some people just can't let go of it, for reasons that remain unfathomable.

[ZombieHorde]

64. would be no bunk left

That is pretty funny.

[Taverner]

68. Well yeah a few years back

I'm gen X - the 70's were like yesterday to me :)