Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[JayUtah]

Your example of a "scholar" who agrees with you is some dude who has a bachelor's degree and published a paper on the prestigious Internet?

Indeed, I don't apply labels like "titillating" and "salacious" lightly. In dismissing his critics on the internet Jabba's citing another guy on the internet as an example of the eminent scholarship he says support him.

We've established the paper says nothing about circumstantial evidence. But then again, Jabba has already conceded that. The connection between his authors and his claims to have "circumstantial evidence" has to be read into it.

But more importantly, it's not evidence -- "circumstantial" or otherwise -- for authenticity. As with all the other salacious nonsense he's invoked before, it's simply another laundry list of reasons why the author urges you to disregard the science favoring a medieval origin.

Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed the false dilemma is still alive and well in Jabba's argument.

 

[Pixel42]

Your claim was "There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence." I asked you for a cite for this claim. Is the paper to which you link being presented as support for the claim - that is, will the paper address the issue of circumstantial evidence* - or is this a reset to blood?

*I've read it, it doesn't.

I suspect what Jabba means is "here's a paper about the kind of evidence I've been talking about whose author seems to think, as I do, that such evidence supports authenticity".

 

[Lucian]

Indeed, I don't apply labels like "titillating" and "salacious" lightly. In dismissing his critics on the internet Jabba's citing another guy on the internet as an example of the eminent scholarship he says support him.

We've established the paper says nothing about circumstantial evidence. But then again, Jabba has already conceded that. The connection between his authors and his claims to have "circumstantial evidence" has to be read into it.

But more importantly, it's not evidence -- "circumstantial" or otherwise -- for authenticity. As with all the other salacious nonsense he's invoked before, it's simply another laundry list of reasons why the author urges you to disregard the science favoring a medieval origin.

Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed the false dilemma is still alive and well in Jabba's argument.

Yup, but I'm not going to complain about Jabba getting away from the circumstantial evidence derail (which now has its very own thread) and back to the topic of this thread. I mean, it would be great if it were something new and worthwhile, or if it actually presented positive evidence for authenticity, or if Jabba actually had anything to contribute beyond a link dump, but you can't have everything.

 

[Jabba]

Your claim was "There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence." I asked you for a cite for this claim. Is the paper to which you link being presented as support for the claim - that is, will the paper address the issue of circumstantial evidence* - or is this a reset to blood?

*I've read it, it doesn't.

Agatha,
- I didn't say that it addressed the circumstantial evidence issue.
- I just said that it presented what I consider circumstantial evidence.

 

[Belz...]

- I just said that it presented what I consider circumstantial evidence.

No, you said it was people agreeing with you when they in fact didn't.

 

[zooterkin]

Agatha,
- I didn't say that it addressed the circumstantial evidence issue.
- I just said that it presented what I consider circumstantial evidence.

What you said (my highlighting):

elbe,
1) It isn't everyone who says my evidence isn't good enough -- or, that my 'evidence' isn't evidence -- it's everyone on this thread.
2) There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

Cite them, and link to where they agree with your ideas of evidence, please.

Agatha,
- Here's a place to start. Most of the papers linked should agree with my ideas about evidence. http://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers
- Not that they will talk about the definition of circumstantial evidence -- just that they refer to the same info as I do as being evidence -- and, at least most of their 'evidence' is not direct.
- I will be more specific if you insist, but I'm slow (as you know), have little time to commit to this (my favorite hobby) and I'd like to address other pressing issues in this thread, the other thread and the $1,000,000 thread!

- That ought to give you guys a good laugh, but if I could win the million, I'd have a lot more time, cause I'd hire people to do most of the things my wife wants me to do...
- (Obviously, receiving the million is virtually impossible, as the Skeptical Inquirer would have to close shop if it had to admit that the scientific opinion that we each have but one, finite, life to live is incorrect. But then, I want to try anyway...)

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say that it addressed the circumstantial evidence issue.

You specifically proffered that paper, among many others, in response to requests that you substantiate your claim that experts outside this thread agreed with your "take on the evidence." You complained that your critics disagree inappropriately with your promise to have "circumstantial evidence of authenticity."

Your offer of proof is either relevant or it isn't. If you're now claiming it's irrelevant, then you still haven't answered Agatha's challenge to substantiate where others agree with you that you have what you say you have.

I just said that it presented what I consider circumstantial evidence.

Since you don't know what circumstantial evidence is, it doesn't matter whether or not you think that's what it is. Your judgment of the nature of the evidence is irrelevant.

You were not asked to provide "circumstantial evidence." You were asked to provide -- and claim to have -- "circumstantial evidence for authenticity." The paper provides no evidence of authenticity, merely speculative reasons not to believe the scientific findings.

 

[Agatha]

Well, it certainly presents something. I'm not sure I'd dignify it with the label of circumstantial evidence - it seems to present a whole lot of claims and assertions interspersed with quotes from various people, the like of which one doesn't generally find in scientific papers. An example is this odd exchange:

“Al,” I said enthusiastically, “how would you like to get involved in a real fun project? It even involves porphyrins.”
“Oh yeah? Did you say fun project?”
“Yup. It might turn out to be the most fun you’ve ever had on a problem.”
“Sounds interesting. Are you guaranteeing it will be fun?”
“Definitely.”

Now I accept that it is several years since I was in academia, but unless things have changed quite radically, this is not the level of writing I expect to see in what purports to be a scientific paper. Nor is the unashamed bias when describing the authors of papers depending on whether Mr Ford (BA in History and Philosophy) agrees or disagrees with their findings. I recently proof-read my daughter's dissertation for her Master's degree, and anything like would have been red-pencilled for sure.

But even if you are right and what this paper presents is circumstantial evidence for blood, this does nothing to support authenticity, because:

• Blood has been available throughout history - it's a renewable resource, every adult has around five litres of the stuff and can easily lose a litre or thereabouts with no ill-effects
• Jewish burial practices require that the dead body be washed, removing any blood
• First century Jewish burial practices (and Biblical accounts) require strips of linen and a separate head cloth
• Dead bodies do not bleed
• The cloth has been dated to 1260-1390 CE, which is a good 1300 years too late to be the burial shroud of Jesus (even if he existed)

 

[Mojo]

- I must say, however, that often I'm also hoping that's what you're saying -- as I think I have an easy answer to it...

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - H.L. Mencken.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I'll start with one of the papers I've already referred to.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- I'll be back about specifics from the paper, and other papers. But, don't hold your breath...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Sometimes it is, in fact, difficult to remember thet your primary task was to drain the swamp.

You said this:

...There are lots of intelligent and well-read (on the subject) scholars, outside of this thread, who agree with my take on the evidence.

In response to being asked to support this claim, you offer an article that does not mention "Circumstantial evidence" at all.

The author of the article does appear to share your dedication to a false dichotomy, and your predilection for character assassination; they do not, in fact, present any actual evidence of authenticity.

This seems to be another article you did not bother to read before offering it as support.

I remain disappointedly yours, &ct.

 

[Kid Eager]

Agatha,
- I didn't say that it addressed the circumstantial evidence issue.
- I just said that it presented what I consider circumstantial evidence.

I've looked really really hard, and I can find nowhere a reference that supports the apparent hypothesis that "circumstantial evidence" is a synonym for "unevidenced assertion".

What you said is wrong. Move on.

 

[Lucian]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Sometimes it is, in fact, difficult to remember thet your primary task was to drain the swamp.

You said this:



In response to being asked to support this claim, you offer an article that does not mention "Circumstantial evidence" at all.

The author of the article does appear to share your dedication to a false dichotomy, and your predilection for character assassination; they do not, in fact, present any actual evidence of authenticity.

This seems to be another article you did not bother to read before offering it as support.

I remain disappointedly yours, &ct.

There are some eerie similarities in thinking:

- Since a finding that the ‘blood’ is paint would, if correct, constitute evidence for the Shroud being a forgery,
- while conversely, a demonstration that the ‘blood’ is blood would mean the Shroud is less likely to be a forgery,
- the paper’s conclusion that the ‘blood’ is not paint and is blood sheds light on the question of forgery.

I have altered the format to provide everyone with a feeling of familiarity.

 

[abaddon]

There are some eerie similarities in thinking:


I have altered the format to provide everyone with a feeling of familiarity.

Yeah, that's rather odd.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[catsmate]

Given the recent Mod-box, here's a summary of the evidence for the shroud's medieval origin that Jabba continues to ignore in favour of posting semi-random digressions and rambling about dogs (repetitive I know).

Historical.
1. The abject lack of any evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century.
2. It's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze, along with some forty other such burial shrouds.
3. The complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings.
4. The distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological.
5. The image on the cloth does not, despite the squirming of shroudies, in any way resemble a true image of a human body.
6. The position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms just aren't long enough).

Textile.
7. The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony.
8. The d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake not many year later.

Artistic.
9. The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility.
10. Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic.
11. Detailed examination, by microscopic (including light, UV and electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.
12. Samples of the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with all the other evidence.

Cultural.
13. The shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only extant sample of such cloths)
14. Nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts.
15. Further Jewish practices and beliefs are against the preservation (let alone supposed veneration) of an unclean cloth of this type.

So Jabba will you be addressing these points anytime? Or continuing your lies, evasions and slanders?

As doctors Hall, Tite and Hedges summarised it:

 

[Sideroxylon]

Hmmm I guess with no further evidence, that's a wrap for the CIQ. Jabba, if you haven't got any to present yourself we should call this thread a day. I would say you've given it your best shot but all you have done is dishonestly throw out red herrings, links to things you are too lazy to read, and avoid direct discussion of evidence.

 

[The Sparrow]

...(repetitive I know)...

On the contrary. It should be repeated once per page of this thread to remind us all of the "direct evidence' against authenticity.

 

[catsmate]

On the contrary. It should be repeated once per page of this thread to remind us all of the "direct evidence' against authenticity.

I thought about it, but there is a forum rule against spamming. I'll stick with occasional repetition.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Since a finding that the ‘blood’ is paint would, if correct, constitute evidence for the Shroud being a forgery,
- while conversely, a demonstration that the ‘blood’ is blood would mean the Shroud is less likely to be a forgery,
- the paper’s conclusion that the ‘blood’ is not paint and is blood sheds light on the question of forgery.

I just realized what this is.

It's the "Very Effective (Patent Pending) Debate Style" again, he's just trying to apply it to real world evidence instead of debate styles.

Instead of a wizard's duel debate that can be gamed for "points" that "add up" to his side winning, it's the idea that actual evidence should do that.

 

[Jabba]

Well, it certainly presents something. I'm not sure I'd dignify it with the label of circumstantial evidence - it seems to present a whole lot of claims and assertions interspersed with quotes from various people, the like of which one doesn't generally find in scientific papers. An example is this odd exchange:
Now I accept that it is several years since I was in academia, but unless things have changed quite radically, this is not the level of writing I expect to see in what purports to be a scientific paper. Nor is the unashamed bias when describing the authors of papers depending on whether Mr Ford (BA in History and Philosophy) agrees or disagrees with their findings. I recently proof-read my daughter's dissertation for her Master's degree, and anything like would have been red-pencilled for sure.

But even if you are right and what this paper presents is circumstantial evidence for blood, this does nothing to support authenticity, because:

• Blood has been available throughout history - it's a renewable resource, every adult has around five litres of the stuff and can easily lose a litre or thereabouts with no ill-effects
• Jewish burial practices require that the dead body be washed, removing any blood
• First century Jewish burial practices (and Biblical accounts) require strips of linen and a separate head cloth
• Dead bodies do not bleed
• The cloth has been dated to 1260-1390 CE, which is a good 1300 years too late to be the burial shroud of Jesus (even if he existed)

Agatha,
- Ford brings up many, many claims by people with some degree of expertise. The degree may be small, and the claim may be weak, but they are still circumstantial evidence for blood.
- Whether blood is circumstantial evidence for, or against, authenticity is another question, and, I'll address that as soon as possible. I have many other questions and comments that I should probably try to address first.

 

[Jabba]

Given the recent Mod-box, here's a summary of the evidence for the shroud's medieval origin that Jabba continues to ignore in favour of posting semi-random digressions and rambling about dogs (repetitive I know).

Historical.
1. The abject lack of any evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century.
2. It's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze, along with some forty other such burial shrouds.
3. The complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings.
4. The distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological.
5. The image on the cloth does not, despite the squirming of shroudies, in any way resemble a true image of a human body.
6. The position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms just aren't long enough).

Textile.
7. The weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from the first century Mid East, but matches medieval Europe well. There is no example of the complex herringbone twill weave that has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony.
8. The d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake not many year later.

Artistic.
9. The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility.
10. Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic.
11. Detailed examination, by microscopic (including light, UV and electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.
12. Samples of the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with all the other evidence.

Cultural.
13. The shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only extant sample of such cloths)
14. Nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts.
15. Further Jewish practices and beliefs are against the preservation (let alone supposed veneration) of an unclean cloth of this type.

So Jabba will you be addressing these points anytime? Or continuing your lies, evasions and slanders?

As doctors Hall, Tite and Hedges summarised it:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_162724fbe8b99a1548.png[/qimg]

On the contrary. It should be repeated once per page of this thread to remind us all of the "direct evidence' against authenticity.

Catsmate and Sparrow,
- I agree with Sparrow except that I have it on my blog at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=166.
- If someone would volunteer to help me with my blog, we could probably make it much more useful. Or -- again -- if the moderators here would allow it, we could try to develop a kind of summary page on this forum...