Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Sh...?--History-Tells-a-Different-Story&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/inquirer/shroud-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...drdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

Why would the Catholic Church want to disprove the shroud?

 

[Jabba]

tsig,
- It wouldn't.

 

[catsmate]

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Sh...?--History-Tells-a-Different-Story&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/inquirer/shroud-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...drdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

Are you making any attempt here?
One of your links is to Rogers paper, this has already been dealt with, including his lies about the area used for sampling.

Most of the others repeat the lie that the sample selected for ¹⁴C analysis was from a patch, this has also been covered both here and in material linked to (which I can only assume you haven't bothered to even look at).
You also link the the CSICOP article, which was linked to earlier, as if it supports you "argument"; in fact Nickell comprehensively rebuts the various attempts to discredit the ¹⁴C dating an the medieval origin of the cloth.

Try again.

 

[IanS]

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Sh...?--History-Tells-a-Different-Story&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/inquirer/shroud-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...drdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

You are not listing proper scientific references.

What you are listing above appear to be articles written about what are claimed to be scientific reports.

Just list the actual references to the research journals. Eg you need to give a page and vol reference to papers published in proper journals such as Phys Rev or J.Am.Chem Soc.

The only such Shroud Paper that I know of is the one by Ray Rogers which is famous for somehow having got past the editor of Spectrochim Acta.

However, iirc that particular Rogers paper is extremely weak to say the least. And although Spectrochim Acta is a real journal, it is not a first rank research Journal, and the editor was presumably unaware that Ray Rogers was writing as a religious shroud believer and a member of STURP … an organisation which afaik had been trying for decades to fool the editors of various science journals into allowing one of their religious papers to get through … presumably so that they could ever after claim to have published genuine scientific peer reviewed evidence in favour of the Shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus. That is what's known as an attempted fraud.

You need to give proper references to publications in genuine high level science research journals.

 

[Jabba]

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

 

[tsig]

tsig,
- It wouldn't.

The Papal Custodians of the Shroud in Turin were not pleased.
They had been responsible for selecting the sample from a corner
of the cloth. They had ignored scientific protocols to which they had previously agreed. These protocols called for multiple samples
from multiple locations. And in 2002, during a restoration of the
shroud, they had examined the area from which the samples were
cut and had not found any visual evidence of mending

 

[IanS]

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

I'm not interested in so-called "articles" (and neither should you be). I'm interested in the fact that the only genuine scientific tests that have ever been done on the shroud are the C14 tests that were done in 1988 (more could have been done since then, but the Vatican refuses).

That scientifically valid dating shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the shroud almost certainly dates from 1260AD to 1390AD. Which just so happens, "coincidently", to be the same time when that particular shroud was first produced.

If you want to overturn those C14 results, then no amount of wishful religiously driven thinking will do that. The task of the shroud believers is simple and straight forward - you have to produce genuine modern independent scientific publications which accurately date the shroud to a range entirely outside that provided by the 1988 radiocarbon tests ...

... where are those scientifically valid tests that overturn the C14 dating?

 

[catsmate]

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

You are the one making the claims, that the radiocarbon dating isn't accurate, that blood was found on the cloth et cetera; it is up to you to justify these claims with facts, evidence and science, if you can.
Don't expect others to help you justify your beliefs.

 

[Leumas]

It always amazes me how theists cannot recognize the scam of their own religion.

The amazing thing is that in other ways most are in fact quite rational. If I tried to present a theist with a one pound gold bar and told him that I would trade him it for $100 he most likely would want to test the gold content in the bar before forking over $100.

Now if I tell him that he can take a scraping and test it and the test comes back negative for gold.....would he buy it if I tell him that he must have made the test wrong or some other such types of contortions? And even if he were to concede but then demand a second test would he be satisfied if I told him that he cannot do that since it would reduce the size of the bar or some other such writhing?

Would he go for such shenanigans? Would he buy my gold bar still after all that?

I very much doubt it......

So why is it that the very exact grifts are not rejected by theists when it comes to religious stuff? If they are so sharp and wary of grifters in normal everyday transactions and practical life.....why do they allow themselves to suspend that skeptical mindset when it comes to THEIR religion....they don't do it for other religions mind you.

If the Shroud of Turin was the Shroud of Mecca instead and the very same tomfoolery was being done by Moslims I doubt any Christian would swallow it. In fact they would laugh their heads off.

So why is it that they cannot apply the very same cynicism to their religion?

It is not just mere BLIND prejudice..... they demonstrate a lot more intelligence and discerning perspicacity in almost every other way.

I think TRIBALISM is a very deeply ingrained instinct and much like sexual desire and need for breathing, it might be that TRIBALISM is just that powerful.

ETA: Ah.... and I forgot to add..... this tribalism hording instinct is not just for religions and theists only. The blinding prejudice of tribalism can manifest itself in people who claim to be skeptics too. All it takes is emotional investment. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful catalyst for all sorts of delusional irrationality and Tribalism is so deeply ingrained that I think it is almost impossible except for the most staunchly rational to break out of the primordial hording imperative.

 

[Mashuna]

- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.

This has been done - you've just linked back to the same articles again. If you're not going to address the specifics, what's the point in the discussion?

 

[Jabba]

- Anyway, I'll go back and look at the web pages you guys have referred me to and see if I can find any real evidence against the claims on those pages...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.

Why don't you try reading the thread you're posting in? You'll find that it's already been done, before you posted the articles.

 

[IanS]

- Anyway, I'll go back and look at the web pages you guys have referred me to and see if I can find any real evidence against the claims on those pages...

Instead of looking at any web page, why don't you just read the paper in Nature where the results of the original 1988 radiocarbon tests were reported.

Or if that is not available to you, then just read Harry Gove's book describing the entire 10 year process. You could probably buy a copy on eBay for just $1.

Nothing new has happened since then. If it had, then it would have been published in a real science journal.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Funny how proponents of the Shroud being genuine ignore the other Shroud Threads that go over the same old ground.

They go away for a while then come back with the same arguments hoping people have forgotten about the last time they were discussed and expect it all to be refuted again from scratch.

 

[Jabba]

Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticl...udrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth

Azzthom,
- In my own defense:
1) I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.
2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.
3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.
4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.
5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

 

[azzthom]

Azzthom,
- In my own defense:
1) I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.
2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.
3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.
4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.
5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

Jabba,

1)Catsmate1 posted the CSICOP link in post 28 of this thread.
2)??
3)Joe is a professional, and well respected, investigator.
4)As opposed to those unbiased employees of the vatican?
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walter McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

I am providing another link for you, this one consists of both Pro and Anti authenticity articles, books etc
You need to read the work of both sides, and compare and contrast the evidence, and take note of assumptions, and speculation.

http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

1)Catsmate1 posted the CSICOP link in post 28 of this thread.
2)??
3)Joe is a professional, and well respected, investigator.
4)As opposed to those unbiased employees of the vatican?
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walter McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

I am providing another link for you, this one consists of both Pro and Anti authenticity articles, books etc
You need to read the work of both sides, and compare and contrast the evidence, and take note of assumptions, and speculation.

http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/

Azzthom,
- Re #1. Oh. Thanks.
- Re #2. Someone above thought that I thought That the Joe Nickell article was supportive – I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that.
- Re #3. But, who is Joe well-respected By? And also, there are all sorts of well-respected investigators -- and scientists -- who disagree with Joe, and write about why they disagree with him.
- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?
- Re #5. No. I know all about Walter McCrone. I have his book, "Judgment Day…" and have read much of what he has written -- and even corresponded with ( by e-mail and phone) the current Executive Editor of the International Journal (The Microscope) that Walter left behind. And besides, Walter didn't demolish Rogers' claims -- Walter died two or three years before Rogers published his paper in Thermochimica Acta.. Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.
- I'll check out the site you gave me, but would still like someone to point me to the article where Rogers admits that thing about watercolor paint. I'm sure that I had seen a discussion of that issue before, and I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

 

[azzthom]

Azzthom,
- Re #1. Oh. Thanks.
- Re #2. Someone above thought that I thought That the Joe Nickell article was supportive – I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that.
- Re #3. But, who is Joe well-respected By? And also, there are all sorts of well-respected investigators -- and scientists -- who disagree with Joe, and write about why they disagree with him.
- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?
- Re #5. No. I know all about Walter McCrone. I have his book, "Judgment Day…" and have read much of what he has written -- and even corresponded with ( by e-mail and phone) the current Executive Editor of the International Journal (The Microscope) that Walter left behind. And besides, Walter didn't demolish Rogers' claims -- Walter died two or three years before Rogers published his paper in Thermochimica Acta.. Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.
- I'll check out the site you gave me, but would still like someone to point me to the article where Rogers admits that thing about watercolor paint. I'm sure that I had seen a discussion of that issue before, and I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

Jabba,

Here is another, more recently updated, link on the shroud. There is a summary of 'the story so far' featuring the guys we've been discussing. At the bottom of the page there is a 'latest news' section. This was last updated on the 18th of February this year, so it may be worth keeping an eye on for future developments.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html


McCrone did indeed demolish Rogers' assertions from beyond the grave. Rogers' claimed that cotton fibres and the dye in a binding medium that he suggested were "Gum", were only found in the tested area. McCrone reported both from the main body of the shroud before Rogers did his tests.

There is a lot more reading suggested at the bottom of the page, and I realise that this requires a significant time investment. The problem is that if we pick and choose the evidence to consider, we end up with meaningless conclusions. I have placed many links on this thread, from both sides of the argument, and have yet to read anything convincing from the pro-authentic side. I cannot tell you what to believe, and wouldn't if I could, but if you hold that the shroud is authentic because of faith and belief, then there is no piece of evidence that will convince you otherwise. By the same token, We who hold that the shroud is a fake will never be convinced otherwise, because we do not share that faith or belief.

 

[catsmate]

Funny how proponents of the Shroud being genuine ignore the other Shroud Threads that go over the same old ground.

They go away for a while then come back with the same arguments hoping people have forgotten about the last time they were discussed and expect it all to be refuted again from scratch.

It's not just the shroudies, most woosters do it to cover their lack of evidence. Just look at DOC's threads or randman's anti-evolution rants.
Though JB posted the same debunked nonsense several times in his abortion causes breast cancer thread, often just days apart.

 

[catsmate]

I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.

Not true.

2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.

Can you at least try to post coherently?

3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.

Irrelevant. His facts and data are sound.

4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.

Also irrelevent. And an attempt at well poisoning. Why not attack his facts?

5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

You're the one attempting to show the shroud isn't a medieval fake, do your own research or admit defeat.