Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giordano said:
From my outside web readings, I thought Jews (c'est moi) were not to be trusted! They just want to mate with white women. Frankly, this was my first hand experience when I was younger. And not just white women!
Click to expand...

:D inorite?

I wonder if Mr. Savage is aware of the irony of suggesting that H & A would be biased against authenticity.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- But, on what do you base that claim? Everything I've read says the opposite. And, Adler was Jewish.
- I don't know about Heller, but the only person I know named Heller is also Jewish...
- As a matter of fact, I -- myself -- happen to be a member of a Jewish synagogue.
Click to expand...

There you go again - trying to change the subject. Ask the members of your synagogue if you have presented a competent case for authenticity.
 
Last edited:
Is the "blood" blood?

I don't think Heller and Adler are being treated very fairly by those who disagree with their conclusions. Neither in "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" (1980), nor in "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin" (1981) do they suggest that they were predisposed to think the "blood" was blood before they began their investigations. Their identification of blood derivatives is essentially in two ways, by spectroscopy and by fluorescence. Although the 'Soret' band, distinctively present in the spectrum, and the porphyrins identified chemically are not specific to blood, the identification of porphyrins certainly narrows the field. Nether collagen nor albumin, for example, often quoted as possible pigment binders, contain porphyrins. Chlorophyll and urine do, as has been pointed out above, and perhaps some specific tests for these should have been tried in an attempt to rule them out. Iron, of course was found in abundance, which could as easily have come from ochre as blood, and there is insufficient qualitative data to distinguish between the two, but specific attempts to find any heavier metals failed, except in one small instance of mercury, which was initially missed altogether by McCrone and only found in a single instance by Heller and Adler. Although their conclusion at the end of their first paper is that there is "positive presumptive evidence" for the blood being real, they do spend some time admitting that neither the spectra nor the chemical identification had "absolute final confirmation." In their second paper, a standard test for bilirubins indicated that bilirubins were present, which, although again not wholly conclusive, does narrow the field further.

It is not impossible that the "blood" was created by concocting a pigment and a binder which, as it happens, fortuitously gives similar results, but I think if I were a forger it would be easier to dribble real blood on with some sort of pipette, wherever it seemed appropriate, or to dab it on to produce the "scourge marks."
 
Just dropped in again ... looks like nothings changed. 53 pages of trying to screw Jabba's head on straight ... with a singular lack of success.

But I'll come back ... it's nice to see old friends again. :)
 
hugh farey said:
Chlorophyll and urine do, as has been pointed out above, and perhaps some specific tests for these should have been tried in an attempt to rule them out.
Click to expand...

"Perhaps"?

It is not impossible that the "blood" was created by concocting a pigment and a binder which, as it happens, fortuitously gives similar results, but I think if I were a forger it would be easier to dribble real blood on with some sort of pipette, wherever it seemed appropriate, or to dab it on to produce the "scourge marks."
Click to expand...

This seems to assume that the intent of creating the blood marks out of such a particular paint was to fool people using analytical techniques which hadn't been invented at the time of painting, rather than simply using a common paint of the time because it was a paint that was common at the time.
 
I don't think the artist thought about 20th century analysis at all. Red paint might have done, but blood was surely easily available, and changes colour to just the right colour - of old blood! I think the purpose of the painting should be borne in mind. An artist illustrating, say, the scourging is depicting fresh wounds and fresh blood, an artist creating a thousand year old relic is going to avoid the usual recipes for 'blood' because it looks too fresh. There may also have been some ritual significance to using real blood for the creation of a relic. Having said that, there are reports that the blood is too pink, so I think the possibility of retouching with a bit of madder is quite likely too.
 
hugh farey said:
I don't think the artist thought about 20th century analysis at all. Red paint might have done, but blood was surely easily available, and changes colour to just the right colour - of old blood! I think the purpose of the painting should be borne in mind. An artist illustrating, say, the scourging is depicting fresh wounds and fresh blood, an artist creating a thousand year old relic is going to avoid the usual recipes for 'blood' because it looks too fresh. There may also have been some ritual significance to using real blood for the creation of a relic. Having said that, there are reports that the blood is too pink, so I think the possibility of retouching with a bit of madder is quite likely too.
Click to expand...

And yet, after this trenchant analysis, the artist apllied whatever pigment used in a way that contradicts the laws of physics, the principles of adsorption and absorption, 1st Century CE Jewish burial customs, and the record(s) of the xian canonic scriptures.

All of a piece with the anatomical "accuracy", postural "accuracy", dimensional "accuracy", pathological "accuracy", and historico-scriptural "accuracy" of the representation on the CIQ.
 
Yes indeed. I don't suppose he knew a lot about physics or Jewish burial customs. He wanted a sheet - a big sheet to go right across an altar, an expensive sheet for proper reverence, and a life-size image (or rather two, to fill the space). The blood looks dabbled about like a bit of an afterthought. Perhaps it was applied by somebody else.
 
hugh farey said:
Yes indeed. I don't suppose he knew a lot about physics or Jewish burial customs. He wanted a sheet - a big sheet to go right across an altar, an expensive sheet for proper reverence, and a life-size image (or rather two, to fill the space). The blood looks dabbled about like a bit of an afterthought. Perhaps it was applied by somebody else.
Click to expand...

Also apparently lacked familiarity with the canonic accounts; and with basic anatomy and physiology.

Don't get me wrong...I am not judging the artistic "merit" of the CIQ. I am, instead, that reality itself argues against its "authenticity". You may not be trying to twist the physical evidence in order to seem to allow for an end run around the 14C dating, but others are.
 
wardenclyffe said:
Jabba,

I think that the problem many people in this thread have is that you will make a statement like you do above. We think that you have read and understood the papers and you know that such dyes have been around forever. Yet, in a few weeks or months, you will likely come back with the exact same argument that you just recognized was wrong. Is there anything you can do to retain this info? I know it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but I think it would help this thread a lot if you could retain what you learn as you go. That may be difficult, so perhaps you need to keep a paper file on the dozen or so topics that come up again and again. Then when they come up again, you can refer to the file and see in your own handwriting what information you have agreed is valid or invalid.

Ward
Click to expand...
Ward,

- That idea is actually central to the debate format (playing field?) I've been proposing -- except, I would have such a file on a separate webpage, and available to everyone.

- I'm surely the most memory challenged in our thread, but others here have made significant incorrect claims about previous discussion results, and need to have such a file available to them as well.
- Then, there are people just joining the discussion, or just looking in. In such written debates as this, the participants -- and followers otherwise -- need an easy way to 'add up' the current pros and cons. Here, for instance, I could use a reference to the thread where LossLeader and I were the only participants. There are references to it back in this thread -- but so far, I can't find them (For a second time!). Anyway, multiple persons have made incorrect claims about that thread -- it isn't just me with the memory problem.
- And besides, such a file should, in general, help us to develop educated opinions, and educated evaluations of those opinions.

- Hope this isn't too 'off-topic.'
 
Your problem is that you've come up with a debate format that you think allows you to obscure the fact that you have no evidence to produce for your claims. Sorry, there aren't too many people here who will let you get away with that. For all your over complicating and hiding behind your format you have nothing to offer because you have no evidence. When you strip away all your lists and debate formats, there's just nothing there.
 
Blood

hugh farey said:
Is the "blood" blood?

I don't think Heller and Adler are being treated very fairly by those who disagree with their conclusions. Neither in "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" (1980), nor in "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin" (1981) do they suggest that they were predisposed to think the "blood" was blood before they began their investigations. Their identification of blood derivatives is essentially in two ways, by spectroscopy and by fluorescence. Although the 'Soret' band, distinctively present in the spectrum, and the porphyrins identified chemically are not specific to blood, the identification of porphyrins certainly narrows the field. Nether collagen nor albumin, for example, often quoted as possible pigment binders, contain porphyrins. Chlorophyll and urine do, as has been pointed out above, and perhaps some specific tests for these should have been tried in an attempt to rule them out. Iron, of course was found in abundance, which could as easily have come from ochre as blood, and there is insufficient qualitative data to distinguish between the two, but specific attempts to find any heavier metals failed, except in one small instance of mercury, which was initially missed altogether by McCrone and only found in a single instance by Heller and Adler. Although their conclusion at the end of their first paper is that there is "positive presumptive evidence" for the blood being real, they do spend some time admitting that neither the spectra nor the chemical identification had "absolute final confirmation." In their second paper, a standard test for bilirubins indicated that bilirubins were present, which, although again not wholly conclusive, does narrow the field further.

It is not impossible that the "blood" was created by concocting a pigment and a binder which, as it happens, fortuitously gives similar results, but I think if I were a forger it would be easier to dribble real blood on with some sort of pipette, wherever it seemed appropriate, or to dab it on to produce the "scourge marks."
Click to expand...
- Thanks, Hugh.
- I had said, "It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood." Not too 'scholarly' -- could you give a more scholarly version of your opinion re the probability of real blood on the shroud?
 
Discussion Format

Craig4 said:
Your problem is that you've come up with a debate format that you think allows you to obscure the fact that you have no evidence to produce for your claims. Sorry, there aren't too many people here who will let you get away with that. For all your over complicating and hiding behind your format you have nothing to offer because you have no evidence. When you strip away all your lists and debate formats, there's just nothing there.
Click to expand...
Craig,
- But, by following my format, it should be much easier to show how foolish I'm being. I already have two strikes against me, and I've just begun to bat!
 
Jabba said:
- Thanks, Hugh.
- I had said, "It seems to me that it's been pretty much proven that the apparent blood stains are real blood." Not too 'scholarly' -- could you give a more scholarly version of your opinion re the probability of real blood on the shroud?
Click to expand...

It has been shown that the stains may consist of blood. I think we can pretty much agree on that.

And?

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Craig,
- But, by following my format, it should be much easier to show how foolish I'm being. I already have two strikes against me, and I've just begun to bat!
Click to expand...

Not following your format hasn't been an impediment to pointing out your errors.
 
Blood

MRC_Hans said:
It has been shown that the stains may consist of blood. I think we can pretty much agree on that.

And?

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- Do you think that the stains probably consist of blood?
- I'll move on to your question, and others, once I see what our consensuses(?) are. Though, Slowvehicle has first dibs.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- Do you think that the stains probably consist of blood?
- I'll move on to your question, and others, once I see what our consensuses(?) are. Though, Slowvehicle has first dibs.
Click to expand...

The stains have some chemical properties consistent with blood. I don't think it is possible to assign any specific probability to it.

So what?

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- Do you think that the stains probably consist of blood?
- I'll move on to your question, and others, once I see what our consensuses(?) are. Though, Slowvehicle has first dibs.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make what compounds are found on something that is only 800 years old, when it would need to be 2000 years old to be what you would like it to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom