Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Jabba,

The burden is on you. You are making the extraordinary claim that science and the world as a whole does not accept. You are the pitcher, not the batter. Pitch us your best evidence that the shroud is genuinely the shroud used by Jesus at his burial. When you do, you will forgive us if we sometimes point out that the evidence on our side has already been presented upthread (sometimes by you, yourself). One at a time, please. Take as much time as you want between pitches. There is no delay of game penalty. If there were, this thread would have been shut down long ago.

Ward

Ward,

- It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood. I need to review the rules some more so as to know how I should present what I see as evidence, but the following link ought to get us started. http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- Not to say that the presence of real blood proves the shroud authentic -- but, I do think that it is a bit of crucial evidence and a big piece of the puzzle.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

By whom do you think blood has been "pretty much proven"?<snip>

Slowvehicle,
- The link above (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf) provides much of the evidence. Do I need to be specific?

 

[Jabba]

Blood-flow

Jabba,

The burden is on you. You are making the extraordinary claim that science and the world as a whole does not accept. You are the pitcher, not the batter. Pitch us your best evidence that the shroud is genuinely the shroud used by Jesus at his burial. When you do, you will forgive us if we sometimes point out that the evidence on our side has already been presented upthread (sometimes by you, yourself). One at a time, please. Take as much time as you want between pitches. There is no delay of game penalty. If there were, this thread would have been shut down long ago.

Ward

Ward,

- It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood. I need to review the rules some more so as to know how I should present what I see as evidence, but the following link ought to get us started. http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- Not to say that the presence of real blood proves the shroud authentic -- but, I do think that it is a bit of crucial evidence and a big piece of the puzzle.

<snip>
In what way do you think the soi dissant blood-images represent the actual behaviour of blood, either from an unwashed and still bleeding (and therefore ritually unclean) corpse, or from a corpse washed <snip>

- There has been a lot written about the strange blood-flow -- I'll be back with specifics.

 

[Jabba]

Blood

<snip>
...which might make sense if, for instance, no-one after the 1st Century CE had access to human blood...

Slowvehicle,
- At this point, I'm just trying to show that there probably is blood on the shroud. After that, I'll try to show the evidential importance of the blood.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Slowvehicle,
- The link above (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf) provides much of the evidence. Do I need to be specific?

You might do better to search the names of the authors in this thread and look to where it's already been debunked.

 

[zooterkin]

- At this point, I'm just trying to show that there probably is blood on the shroud. After that, I'll try to show the evidential importance of the blood.

No. First you need to show why the dating evidence is wrong. Without doing that, proving there is blood (even if you could do that) doesn't get you anywhere.

 

[Mojo]

- There has been a lot written about the strange blood-flow -- I'll be back with specifics.

Perhaps you could be specific about how 1st century bloodstains could have got onto a piece of cloth that wasn't manufactured until over 1,200 years later.

 

[Mojo]

At this point, I'm just trying to show that there probably is blood on the shroud. After that, I'll try to show the evidential importance of the blood.

Even if you are able to prove the presence of blood, why would this be important, given that blood was readily available in the 13th and 14th centuries?

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Even if you are able to prove the presence of blood, why would this be important, given that blood was readily available in the 13th and 14th centuries?

- Blood on the shroud has numerous implications. For one, it suggests that the shroud was not painted.

 

[catsmate]

And, even if there were, it would prove nothing about the age of the cloth.

Absolutely.

********. Walter McCrone examined the particles comprising the image. He looked carefully at the individual particles under high magnification. He was a trained microscopist with years of experience examining fine particles under the microscope. They did not have the morphology of blood cells. All subsequent chemical and microscopic analysis served only to confirm his identifcation as pigments used in that era. In my opinion the more sophisticated analysis methods only gave shroudies that much more room for obfuscation.

Your statement amounts to an accusation of fraud. As someone trained in the same microsope techniques and familiar with McCrone's sterling reputation, I find your statement above not only ignorant but also shameful.

He did the same thing in the previous thread.

Slowvehicle,
- The link above (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf) provides much of the evidence. Do I need to be specific?

Yes.
It's full of unsupported assertions and weasel wording. Phrases lilke "I conclude that contrary to McCrone’s claims, neither iron oxide nor
mercury sulfide contributes to the red coloration of the ‘blood’ images" are unsupported by actual evidence. It also makes untrue claims regarding the peer-review of the work of McCrone and Heller.
Simply put it's worthless rubbish. Just as it was the last time you brought it up.

 

[catsmate]

- Blood on the shroud has numerous implications. For one, it suggests that the shroud was not painted.

Rubbish. Since when is it impossible to paint using blood?

You might do better to search the names of the authors in this thread and look to where it's already been debunked.

And the previous iteration of this thread.

- There has been a lot written about the strange blood-flow -- I'll be back with specifics.

 

[Slowvehicle]

We shouldn't be surprised if the blood has behaved in an unusual way; after all, it was left hanging around for well over a millennium waiting for someone to manufacture a shroud for it to stain. It could have got up to all sorts of stuff in that time.

WOW! I never thought of that...

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

By whom do you think blood has been "pretty much proven"?<snip>

Slowvehicle,
- The link above (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf) provides much of the evidence. Do I need to be specific?

Slowvehicle,
- So far, you haven't asked me to be specific, but if you would like me to, I would start with the following.
- In, I think, the first of the Heller/Adler studies, alleged blood on shroud fibrils was exposed to hydrazine and formic acid vapor, after which it fluoresced under UV light, indicating the presence of porphyrin. Porphyrin is indicative of blood, not paint. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part2.pdf)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- The link above (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf) provides much of the evidence. Do I need to be specific?

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

Yes, you need to be specific.

You need to point out which of the supposed identifications of any mark on the CIQ dependably demonstrates that the mark represents the presence of human blood.

Knock that one out of the park, first.

AFTER you have done that, you need to explain why the "human blood" on the CIQ does not appear in patterns that would represent the way blood would flow from the wounds of a fresh, unwashed (and therefore ritually unclean) corpse, OR in patterns that would represent the way blood would seep form the wounds of a washed and bound corpse, as Matthew's 'god'spiel identifies. You must demonstrate, specifically, why what is claimed to be "blood" on the CIQ does not obey any of the laws of physics (including hydrodynamics).

Knock that one out of the park,next.

AFTER you have done that, you need to explain why the alleged presence of human blood on the CIQ affects, in any way, the ¹⁴C dating. Humans have human blood.

Knock that one out of the park as your third achievement.

I eagerly await your appearances at the plate.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- There has been a lot written about the strange blood-flow -- I'll be back with specifics.

Apologetics and special pleading will not excuse the "blood" on the CIQ from the laws of physics...

Nor does that address why "blood" seems to obviate the ¹⁴C dating, in your mind.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- At this point, I'm just trying to show that there probably is blood on the shroud. After that, I'll try to show the evidential importance of the blood.

I am waiting for you to settle in and knock this one out of the park.

You will still have to address the ¹⁴C date.

Even if (arguendo, and ONLY arguendo) there were,in fact, actual human blood daubed on the CIQ, it could not have been daubed there 700 years BEFORE the cloth existed...

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Blood on the shroud has numerous implications. For one, it suggests that the shroud was not painted.

No, it does not.

The fact that what is claimed to be "blood" does not act as human blood would act, either flowing from a fresh, unwashed (and therefore ritually unclean) corpse, or form a washed corpse bound in strips (pace Matthew), indicates that what is claimed to be "blood" was, in fact, daubed or brushed on...in the mid-12th Century, CE.

Still waiting for you to knock this one out of the park.

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

Yes, you need to be specific.

You need to point out which of the supposed identifications of any mark on the CIQ dependably demonstrates that the mark represents the presence of human blood.

Knock that one out of the park, first.

AFTER you have done that, you need to explain why the "human blood" on the CIQ does not appear in patterns that would represent the way blood would flow from the wounds of a fresh, unwashed (and therefore ritually unclean) corpse, OR in patterns that would represent the way blood would seep form the wounds of a washed and bound corpse, as Matthew's 'god'spiel identifies. You must demonstrate, specifically, why what is claimed to be "blood" on the CIQ does not obey any of the laws of physics (including hydrodynamics).

Knock that one out of the park,next.

AFTER you have done that, you need to explain why the alleged presence of human blood on the CIQ affects, in any way, the ¹⁴C dating. Humans have human blood.

Knock that one out of the park as your third achievement.

I eagerly await your appearances at the plate.

- Cool.
- I'm starting to think that I shouldn't have talked in terms of home runs (I don't think I've got any smokin guns) -- I should have stuck to singles. But, I do think that I've got a lot of singles in this bat.
- One problem, though, is that you must already be aware of the singles I have for the inning about actual blood. You must suspect that there is real blood on the shroud -- you just don't think that the Shroudie explanation for it makes any sense.
- Consequently, for the moment at least, I'll focus on the blood flow.
- I'll be back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, you haven't asked me to be specific, but if you would like me to, I would start with the following.
- In, I think, the first of the Heller/Adler studies, alleged blood on shroud fibrils was exposed to hydrazine and formic acid vapor, after which it fluoresced under UV light, indicating the presence of porphyrin. Porphyrin is indicative of blood, not paint. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part2.pdf)

No, not at all.

Porphyrins are a class of organic molecules (water-soluble nitrogenous pigments) found in many substances, including, but not limited to, urine, chlorophyll, and organic-pigment-based paints.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003614.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/470697/porphyrin

(Oddly enough, I have pointed this out to you before, when you were talking about "serum retraction rings")

Which still does not address the behaviour of what is to be supposed to be "blood", on the CIQ.

Strike One.

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- So far, you haven't asked me to be specific, but if you would like me to, I would start with the following.
- In, I think, the first of the Heller/Adler studies, alleged blood on shroud fibrils was exposed to hydrazine and formic acid vapor, after which it fluoresced under UV light, indicating the presence of porphyrin. Porphyrin is indicative of blood, not paint. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part2.pdf)

As asked before, have you used the search feature to find the prior discussions of this topic in this thread, and the rebuttals to this citation that have already been posted? Did you actually read the Heller and Adler study and evaluate their evidence yourself? Given your strong desire to organize this discussion, have you keep any records of what you already posted, and of the replies? If no to any of these questions, I suggest these would be great aspects for you to immediately incorporate into your organization scheme.

And, exactly, you need to add the specifics! The specifics ARE the evidence; what you have provided are very indirect quotes of second and third hand apologetics that are meaningless as evidence.

To re-iterate Slowvehicle's posts: if you wish an individual pitch to focus on so that you can hit it out of the park, fine. If you like this particular pitch, go for it, Take your time, research it in depth, and come back and hit a line drive off it. But after that, remember that even if it is blood, blood could be painted on, on any cloth, at any time, or even bled on it by anyone. You should be prepared to soon also explain why, if blood, it CAN be Jesus's blood on a Medieval-manufactured cloth. Even more so, to provide evidence why it MUST be Jesus's blood on the cloth, and no others; that would be a homer. Feel free to take these questions one at a time. But don't post your replies until you have a solid completely researched and convincing answer that overcomes the prior rebuttals. You already spent many months away from this topic- now use your time wisely and don't swing until you are sure that you can connect with the ball.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Cool.
- I'm starting to think that I shouldn't have talked in terms of home runs (I don't think I've got any smokin guns) -- I should have stuck to singles. But, I do think that I've got a lot of singles in this bat.

So far, in this "at bat", you have one whiff. The count is 1-0.

(not to mention that you are simply requoting material that has been dealt with before).

Are you admitting, then, that you cannot overcome the ¹⁴C dating?

Are you admitting, then, that you cannot overcome the...odd...behaviour of the "blood" on the CIQ?

- One problem, though, is that you must already be aware of the singles I have for the inning about actual blood. You must suspect that there is real blood on the shroud -- you just don't think that the Shroudie explanation for it makes any sense.

Mr. Savage: This level of dishonesty is, frankly, immoral.

Be so kind as to demonstrate where I have stated that there is "real blood" on the CIQ.

Be so kind as to demonstrate where I have stated that I suspectthere is "real blood" on the CIQ.

Be so kind as to demonstrate where such could be honestly said to be implied by anything I have, in fact posted.

When you are not able to do so, be so kind as to withdraw this perfidious statement,and apologize.

Then, and only then, can you go about demonstrating why you, personally, believe there is human blood on the CIQ

Then, and only then, should you go about explaining why the "blood" on the CIQ demonstrates no actual flow behaviour.

Which would, of course still leave you needing to explain why human blood would obviate the ¹⁴C dating.

- Consequently, for the moment at least, I'll focus on the blood flow.
- I'll be back.

Is this a time out? The pitcher is waiting...