Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.
2)None of the tests conducted (including those conducted by McCrone Associates) have shown the iron earth pigment impurities expected in paint.

- Am I misunderstanding that?

How.old.is.the.cloth?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You should be more clear. Yes, he's misunderstanding both counts; or yes, both statements are true?

Sorry. I am, as I said, having a bad day, physically.

Let me try again:

Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.

Yes, Mr. Savage, you are misunderstanding (or intentionally misstating) this point.

Not one, not a single one, of the tests conducted by, or referenced by, H & A are positive for blood. At best, the tests indicate the presence of substances that are not inconsistent with the presence of blood.

I ddressed this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10675254#post10675254
...a post which you have ignored.

There remains the fact that no source has ever claimed to have detected red blood cells (whole or degraded) on the CIQ.

There remains the fact that the stains on the CIQ do not behave in any manner consistent with the principles of fluid hydrodynamics, adsorption, or absorption.

There remains the fact that the "bloodstains" are adjunct to an anatomically preposterous (the head comes to a chisel point), posturally impossible (have you assumed the Shroud Slouch^TM on a flat surface, yet?), scripturally ludicrous, historically indefensible, byzantine-styled representational image rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of a 780-year-old length of linen.

So, yes, you are misunderstanding (or intentionally misrepresenting) this point. As has been pointed out to you multiple times.

2)None of the tests conducted (including those conducted by McCrone Associates) have shown the iron earth pigment impurities expected in paint.

- Am I misunderstanding that?

Yes, you are misunderstanding this, or misstating it. Did you read Bright Earth yet? Until the advent of aniline dyes (in the mid-17th Centry CE), almost all red, brown, or red-brown pigments were porphyrin-bearing organic compounds (cinnabar and rust [Iron(III) oxide] serve as the exceptions that prove the rule). The pigments in red clays and red earths (umbre, ochre, sienna) get their color from porphyrin compounds.

And you have YET to substantively address the results of the most scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating, ever.

When do you intend to provide your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Nonpareil]

- Could be that before I try to show that the stains are blood, I should try to show how blood supports authenticity

It doesn't.

or go back to trying to show that the carbon dating is wrong.

It isn't, and you can't.

So for now, I'll stick with trying to support the claim that the stains are blood.

So you're going to keep dancing around the actual issue. Wonderful.

'Round and 'round and 'round he goes...

 

[hugh farey]

There remains the fact that no source has ever claimed to have detected red blood cells (whole or degraded) on the CIQ.

Er... Gerard Lucotte, "Vérités sur le Saint Suaire," Atelier Fol'fer, 2010, contains nearly 100 pages of electron micrographs of fragments claimed to be from the surface of the Shroud, many including X-ray spectrographic analysis, some of which are indeed claimed to be red blood cells.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Er... Gerard Lucotte, "Vérités sur le Saint Suaire," Atelier Fol'fer, 2010, contains nearly 100 pages of electron micrographs of fragments claimed to be from the surface of the Shroud, many including X-ray spectrographic analysis, some of which are indeed claimed to be red blood cells.

TY! Is there a source I can read that online?

I would be fascinated, especially to read the provenance.

ETA: after a bit of reading, I am specifically interested in the source of Lucotte's samples. Do you know where he got his material?

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format

...
Not one, not a single one, of the tests conducted by, or referenced by, H & A are positive for blood. At best, the tests indicate the presence of substances that are not inconsistent with the presence of blood...

- As I understand it, that is what is meant by "positive for blood." Basically, H&A found only what they should have found if the stains are blood -- they didn't find anything that they shouldn't find if the stains are blood.

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.
2)None of the tests conducted (including those conducted by McCrone Associates) have shown the iron earth pigment impurities expected in paint.

- Am I misunderstanding that?

Yes, on both counts.

See above, multiple times.

Slowvehicle,
- Please point out at least one of those times specifically.

 

[Mojo]

- As I understand it, that is what is meant by "positive for blood." Basically, H&A found only what they should have found if the stains are blood -- they didn't find anything that they shouldn't find if the stains are blood.

What shouldn't they have found if the stains are blood?

 

[zooterkin]

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

Don't bother with 1), just focus on carbon dating. The cloth is only ~800 years old.

Since you clearly have not been reading any previous replies.

 

[John Jones]

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

The blood is irrelevant if you can't demonstrate that the shroud is 2000 years old

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

What evidence have you to present that suggests that the CIQ is 2000 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- As I understand it, that is what is meant by "positive for blood." Basically, H&A found only what they should have found if the stains are blood -- they didn't find anything that they shouldn't find if the stains are blood.

How very sad.

Do you simply not read posts on this thread at all, or is it only my posts you do not read?

I addressed this issue in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10675254#post10675254
...you really ought to read it.

The upshot is that not a single one of H & A's tests detects blood and only blood. Every single substance detected also has a non-blood source.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- Please point out at least one of those times specifically.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10675254#post10675254

on this very page:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10683515#post10683515

 

[hugh farey]

TY! Is there a source I can read that online?

I would be fascinated, especially to read the provenance.

ETA: after a bit of reading, I am specifically interested in the source of Lucotte's samples. Do you know where he got his material?

I think his material was entirely from Riggi di Numana's hooverings. For an outline of his work, try "http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380797812_Lucotte.pdf." There is a rather poor scan of some of his SEM photos at "http://imageshack.com/f/23/01p2.jpg."

 

[Jabba]

Blood/H&A

- As I understand it, that is what is meant by "positive for blood." Basically, H&A found only what they should have found if the stains are blood -- they didn't find anything that they shouldn't find if the stains are blood.

How very sad.

Do you simply not read posts on this thread at all, or is it only my posts you do not read?

I addressed this issue in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10675254#post10675254
...you really ought to read it.

The upshot is that not a single one of H & A's tests detects blood and only blood. Every single substance detected also has a non-blood source.

- I don't understand how that disagrees with what I just said...

 

[Nonpareil]

- I don't understand how that disagrees with what I just said...

It doesn't actually matter, because the Shroud is not two thousand years old. There is no evidence supporting that claim and there never has been. There is only wishful thinking.

 

[Craig4]

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

How about number 2 be HOW OLD IS THE DAMN CLOTH?

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Paint

What shouldn't they have found if the stains are blood?

Mojo,
- Manganese, cobalt, and nickel?

 

[Loss Leader]

- I tell you what -- I'll try to compromise. Let there be two lines of conjecture!
1) Are the stains blood? And,
2) The most popular topic otherwise. (I'd suggest either carbon dating, or the relevance of blood.)

- Whatever, I can only do one of your choices. I'll try to give your choice as much time as my own.

And yet your next four posts:

<blood>

<blood>

<blood>

<blood>

You are only talking about blood. Honor your commitment. Present evidence that the linen is 2,000 years old sufficient to overcome the carbon dating.