Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Slowvehicle]

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 places 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.

As usual, beautifully said.

Mr. Savage, you must read, and understand, this post...

 

[Giordano]

- 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.

1. No one wins ball games by hitting singles! A team or an individual must hit enough singles to get at least one run, so your analogy is at its heart flawed.

2. Unfortunately, you haven't even hit one single: they have been all fouls as or strikes as judged by the umps and the crowd.

3. No- as far as I know, no one here suspects that there is real blood on the shroud. Period. Why would we think so if we don't accept the Shroudie explanation for it, which is both wrong and the only "evidence" available? Do you believe that we have, or should have, some gut feeling about it being blood even with no evidence in support of it, and lots of evidence against it? I suspect that you have this kind of unsupported gut feeling, but others want evidence and proof.

4. And yet once again you are moving on to another topic before you have addressed the rebuttals to the first one. You turned your back on the pitch before it even reached the plate, called it a single, and asked for another pitch. What game exactly are you playing here?

And you claim that we are the ones who keep you off balance by throwing too many questions at you.

 

[zooterkin]

- 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.

Yes, what ever you do, don't address the pachyderm by the fireplace.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Why are you changing the subject again? You said that you wanted to focus on one particular sub-sub-sub topic at a time and the topic that you chose to focus on was the presence of blood on the Shroud. You link to one paper, then briefly mention one specific thing about that paper and now you're abandoning that topic completely to talk about the blood flows.

Why do you keep insisting that you think effective debate can only happen if people don't change the subject, then change the subject every few posts?

 

[ferd burfle]

Absolutely.


He did the same thing in the previous thread.


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.

I refuse to be drawn into Jabba's little game of "here we go round the mulberry bush" by which I mean the time-honored wooster's gambit of steering the discussion into the details and "he said-she said" in order to avoid the most important and cooclusive evidence, here the C14 results.

I only skimmed the paper Jabba cited because it was more politics than science but I did find this gem, saying of McCrone:

He was and remains a devoted crusader for the importance of the light microscope, despite its being made obsolete long ago by physics-based instruments.

This statement is either ignorance or a lie; it could be either but I know which one I'd put my money on. The claim that the light microsppe is obsolete is ridiculous. Microscopic examintation of the unknown material is alwas the first step in any competent analysis of fine particles. I've done analyses to distinguish between two particles, cotton and paper fibers, that are the same morphologically and give identical SEMEDX elemental and micro-FT_IR results. Yet a simple test under crossed polarizers with a transmitted light microscope can distinguiish between the two, literally in seconds.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I refuse to be drawn into Jabba's little game of "here we go round the mulberry bush" by which I mean the time-honored wooster's gambit of steering the discussion into the details and "he said-she said" in order to avoid the most important and cooclusive evidence, here the C14 results.

I only skimmed the paper Jabba cited because it was more politics than science but I did find this gem, saying of McCrone:

This statement is either ignorance or a lie; it could be either but I know which one I'd put my money on. The claim that the light microsppe is obsolete is ridiculous. Microscopic examintation of the unknown material is alwas the first step in any competent analysis of fine particles. I've done analyses to distinguish between two particles, cotton and paper fibers, that are the same morphologically and give identical SEMEDX elemental and micro-FT_IR results. Yet a simple test under crossed polarizers with a transmitted light microscope can distinguiish between the two, literally in seconds.

Inorite? But you are using facts...

 

[Jabba]

Blood

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

Slowvehicle,

- That shows how much you know! The count is 0-1!
- Strike one!

- Do you accept that Heller and Adler did find porphyrin?
- Did they have that kind of paint available in the 14th century?

 

[Lucian]

- 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.

Since we seem to be committed to this metaphor:
- I think smoking guns are a big no no at baseball games.
- You haven't had an infield pop-up yet, much less a solid single.

 

[Lucian]

Yes, what ever you do, don't address the pachyderm by the fireplace.

I have some questions concerning this pachyderm: Has it been dated? Is it possible that the smoke from the fireplace has caused a woolly mammoth to look like a comparatively modern pachyderm? Are its wrinkles in a herringbone pattern? Is this wrinkle pattern more typical of Asian or African pachyderms? Is there any evidence of some patching?

 

[Jabba]

Blood

- OK. Organic dyes have been available forever...
- Strike two.

- Now, I gotta go back and figure out why Heller and Adler were so sure that the porphyrin indicated blood. At one time or another, I've read most -- if not all -- of what Heller and Adler had to say about their conclusion of blood on the shroud. I just don't remember. I'll have to review all that stuff.
- I'll be back.

Hugh,
- If you're listening, you can probably summarize why they concluded blood.

 

[jond]

- OK. Organic dyes have been available forever...
- Strike two.

- Now, I gotta go back and figure out why Heller and Adler were so sure that the porphyrin indicated blood. At one time or another, I've read most -- if not all -- of what Heller and Adler had to say about their conclusion of blood on the shroud. I just don't remember. I'll have to review all that stuff.
- I'll be back.

Hugh,
- If you're listening, you can probably summarize why they concluded blood.

Maybe because, like you, they really really wanted it to be?

 

[John Jones]

Wake me if he hits one out of the park - or if he even gets a base hit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Now, I gotta go back and figure out why Heller and Adler were so sure that the porphyrin indicated blood.

I'll give you a hint - it's the same reason that you were.

 

[Olowkow]

Wake me if he hits one out of the park - or if he even gets a base hit.

Bottom of the ninth, and he's still stuck on a bus on the way to the park.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- That shows how much you know! The count is 0-1!
- Strike one!

- Do you accept that Heller and Adler did find porphyrin?
- Did they have that kind of paint available in the 14th century?

...at least you understand that you have, in fact, utterly failed to even begin to "knock this one out of the park"...

1. Have you admitted that you made a dishonest misstatement about my position yet?

2. Did you even read the article about porphyrins (not just "porphyrin")? Many, many organic pigments are, in fact, porphyrins...and organic pigments constituted most of the red/brown pigments used in paints until the advent of anilyne dyes in 1853 or so. Yes, porphyrin-based organic pigment paint was "available" in the mid-13th Century CE...in fact, it was ubiquitous.

I strongly recommend you read Bright Earth: Art and the Invention of Color by Philip Ball.
http://www.amazon.com/Bright-Earth-Art-Invention-Color/dp/0226036286

3. And, yes, I made an error. I suppose that does, in fact, show "how much I know", and, at least in your mind, validates all of your own errors, outright fantasies, and accusations of incompetence and dishonesty with which you hope to demonstrate the authenticity of the CIQ. Suppose you address some of my questions?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have some questions concerning this pachyderm: Has it been dated? Is it possible that the smoke from the fireplace has caused a woolly mammoth to look like a comparatively modern pachyderm? Are its wrinkles in a herringbone pattern? Is this wrinkle pattern more typical of Asian or African pachyderms? Is there any evidence of some patching?

Please. It's "some patching"...lest you be accused of error...

"Some repair" has been lately declared equivalent. Have you repaired your mammoth?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- OK. Organic dyes have been available forever...
- Strike two.

- Now, I gotta go back and figure out why Heller and Adler were so sure that the porphyrin indicated blood. At one time or another, I've read most -- if not all -- of what Heller and Adler had to say about their conclusion of blood on the shroud. I just don't remember. I'll have to review all that stuff.
- I'll be back.

Hugh,
- If you're listening, you can probably summarize why they concluded blood.

Heller and Adler "concluded" that they found "blood" because they had already "concluded: that the CIQ was "authentic". They, as you do, had assumed their consequent, and were willing to indulge in special pleading to any degree necessary.

They "concluded" the CIQ was "authentic" before they began...and only looked for any shred of anything that could be said to support their conclusion.

That is not, of course, how science is done.

 

[John Jones]

Blood has a porphyrin ring in ii.
Chlorophyl has a porphyrin ring in it
Green plants produce chlorphyll
Therefor christ was a green plant.

 

[Craig4]

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

How do you figure that?

 

[Mojo]

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

Nope. It would just suggest that it has blood on it.

Blood is a readily available substance, and is ideal to use for making a cloth look bloodstained. Because it has always been so readily available its presence couldn't help your arguments for authenticity unless you had a holy DNA sample to compare it with. And even if you did I think you might have problems establishing a chain of custody for it.

And you would still have the problem that a cloth manufactured in the 13th or 14th century could not have existed in the first century.