Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

<snip>
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walte r McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

Technically McCrone's study (microscopical examination, analysis of alleged "blood" et cetera) came first, several decades before Rogers attempt to discredit the ¹⁴C analysis; however Rogers utterly failed to rebut McCrone's analysis, and lied several times in his paper.

 

[catsmate]

- 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.

Try dealing with the facts not attempting argument from authority.

- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?

Evidence?

- 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..

Actually he did, despite doing his main work on the shroud in 1978..........
Rogers claimed that certain materials (a dye composed of madder root and fibres of cotton) were found only in the area of the shroud sampled for radiocarbon testing, thus lending credence to his hypothesis that the area was a medieval patch; McCrone's examination of the cloth, in addition to showing that the area sampled wasn't part of a patch (and thus 'pre-bunking' Rogers), also showed these fibres and dye existed in other parts of the shroud.
Further Rogers case is based on the lie that he had access to fibres from the sample removed for radiocarbon analysis (untrue, they were destroyed).

Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Irrelevent.

I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

Your surety is worthless, show how the remarks were taken out of context.

 

[Jabba]

...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.

Azzthom,

- Just to let you know, I do appreciate your patience.

- I don't really "hold that the Shroud is authentic." Or at least, that's not how I would say it. What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.
- I can honestly say that I don't base my belief about the evidence favoring authenticity on "faith." I wish I had faith -- I suspect that real faith is quite functional.
- Though I would have to admit that I do want to believe that it's authentic -- which of course has an effect upon my judgment... But then, aren't you guys also biased -- just in the opposite direction?

- You probably know this already, but the best site for 'hearing' the authenticity side is http://shroud.com/, run by Barrie Schwortz.

- I'll get to your recommended sites.
- Thanks.

P.S. To see where I claim to be in regard to Christianity, you should check out http://messiahornot.com/index.php, and http://messiahornot.com/Biography2.php.

 

[Brainache]

... I don't really "hold that the Shroud is authentic." Or at least, that's not how I would say it. What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.
...

But all of the evidence so far presented shows that the Shroud was made some time in the 14th century, so unless you are using some new definition of "authenticity", you are quite simply wrong about this.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes people are just wrong. There really is nothing left to debate, unless you want to talk about the identity of the 14th century artist who produced it...

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

But all of the evidence so far presented shows that the Shroud was made some time in the 14th century, so unless you are using some new definition of "authenticity", you are quite simply wrong about this...

Brainache,
- Take a look at http://shroud.com/, by Barrie Schwortz.
- Note that except for the scientists who did the carbon dating, the only scientist with hands-on experience with the Shroud (or with "sticky tape" samples taken from the Shroud) arguing against Shroud validity is Walter McCrone (who only had sticky tape samples provided to him by Alan Adler to examine). Whereas, numerous Scientists with hands-on experience have written peer-reviewed articles arguing for the Shroud.

 

[Jabba]

Blood? My "sub-thread."

- From http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104:
The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
- To back that up, here's a nice paper by Alan Adler, a Jew (and not expecting, or hoping for, authenticity), about the apparent blood on the Shroud. Look up "serum clot" in the paper. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- If you have objections, let me know. In this sub-thread, I will decide which objection to address first.

 

[realpaladin]

Jabba, could/would you please answer me this question? It has been burning since the start of this thread.

*If it were conclusively shown that the shroud comes from near the time it needs to come... what features does it have that make it a shroud wherein Jesus could have been wrapped and not someone else?*

After all, at some point everyone in that century died and there must have been a few 10.000's of people being wrapped in shrouds...

Let me clarify my puzzlement:

If in 2000 years time someone would produce a jacket and say 'This is the jacket that J.F. Kennedy wore on the day that he was shot. There is blood on it, the date is right, the size is right.', what, in your opinion, would be needed to authenticate that jacket as *the* jacket?

 

[IanS]

What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.

Well you just cannot be serious!

There is no "evidence" supporting any "authenticity" of the shroud.

The only genuine valid evidential study that's ever been done on the shroud remains the C14 that was done in 1988.

That is the only real evidence that's ever been deduced about the "authenticity" shroud.

If you think that the C14 supports authenticity of the shroud then something here is very wrong indeed.

The stuff that you are talking about is not "evidence". What that is, is a whole bunch of invented stories from religious propaganda groups who's mission in life is to promote Christianity.

It's quite pointless anyone, on either side, arguing about such things as whether or not a similar image can be reproduced, or whether the cloth is of a particular weave or whether certain rare pollen grains are present, or whether there is human blood on the shroud, etc. etc. That's all been completely by-passed by the undeniable fact that the shroud has been independently tested by 3 separate radiocarbon labs, using a scientifically established technique which has been verified literally hundreds of thousands of times as being very accurate indeed, and the results from all 3 labs, inc. all their tests on back-up samples of the shroud, all gave the same date range of circa. 1260AD to 1390AD.

Those are the only genuine scientifically accurate test that have ever been done on the shroud. And they all gave precisely the same answer.

It's not an absolute 100% total certainty that the shroud is only 700 years old. Nothing in this world is literally 100% certain - there's even a small chance that evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all entirely wrong. But the odds against that are not even worthy of discussion.

The C14 results tell us beyond all possible doubt that the overwhelming likelihood, contrary to what you just said above(!), is that as far as anyone can honestly tell the shroud almost certainly dates from that period very close to around 1300AD, ie about 700 year old.

And the only way to obtain genuine "evidence" to cast any more light on that, is to perform some new scientific test which is even more accurate than the C14. But of course the Vatican refuses to do that.

The "preponderance of evidence" that you are talking about, amounts only to those C14 tests ... there is no other genuine evidence to accurately and objectively date the shroud. In fact, that is precisely why the C14 was done in the first place!

 

[Ladewig]

- From http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104:
The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
- To back that up, here's a nice paper by Alan Adler, a Jew (and not expecting, or hoping for, authenticity), about the apparent blood on the Shroud. Look up "serum clot" in the paper. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- If you have objections, let me know. In this sub-thread, I will decide which objection to address first.

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, could/would you please answer me this question? It has been burning since the start of this thread.

*If it were conclusively shown that the shroud comes from near the time it needs to come... what features does it have that make it a shroud wherein Jesus could have been wrapped and not someone else?*

After all, at some point everyone in that century died and there must have been a few 10.000's of people being wrapped in shrouds...

Let me clarify my puzzlement:

If in 2000 years time someone would produce a jacket and say 'This is the jacket that J.F. Kennedy wore on the day that he was shot. There is blood on it, the date is right, the size is right.', what, in your opinion, would be needed to authenticate that jacket as *the* jacket?

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)
- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.
- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.
- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

- Thanks for the question.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

 

[Jabba]

Blood? My "sub-thread."

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

Ladewig,

- Good question!

- For one thing, the only hands on scientist arguing against authenticity, Walter McCrone, was adamant about there being no blood on the Shroud.
- Also, the apparent blood stains on the Shroud could not have been painted -- they have the characteristics (not visible to the naked eye) of real wounds, they were on the Shroud before the image and were established on the Shroud by a different process than was the image.

- Those answers are rather superficial, and I'll gladly (try to) provide the specific evidence for those claims when specifically asked. Just that I have miles to go before I sleep, and I had best keep moving.
- Thanks.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Yes, just but until shown wrong they are the only scientific facts.
And how could the dating done by three independent labs be wrong?
Only if the vatican had given them access to the wrong material.
Are the scientists of the vatican ignorants (for not knowing they had given the wrong parts of the shroud) or pranksters (which did knowingly supply the wrong fabric)?
Jabba you seem to be desperatly grasping for straws!
Just face it - without new C14 tests there is no way to show the existing datings are wrong. Until new results for C14 datings come up all speculation about how the picture of the shroud could be authentic is mental masturbation.

 

[realpaladin]

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)

For things to be classified atypical you would need either an 'all agreed upon' standard or you would need to have documentation of a lot of cases.
I have done some work for 'body part matching' software for disaster areas (yes, it is as grisly as it sounds) and I can tell you that even within one body (when you know there are not more than let's say 20 bodies around) there is a lot of possibilities for mismatching.
Just the database for 'standardized' tattoo's is over 8000 entries. That is 'standardized', meaning that I can not go lower than 8000 different 'types' of tattoo.

Saying something is atypical is extremely hard and in fact has not been achieved in current-day technology *with* all of our enormous capacity for data.

- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns,"

If we are going with 'reasonable', then I would say it is not very reasonable that the people who loved him would have not at least taken off that symbol of mockery and despise.

Would you leave markings of torture and ridicule on a loved one when you put them into their final resting place?

spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

This suggests that there is a complete record of all the other n x 1000 of 'criminals' that have been crucified?

Going with the JFK analogy again, that same month at least a few 1000 people across the planet had similar jackets that got blood on them.

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.

The same one, with status and all, who did not remove the crown of thorns but wrapped it tightly around the head...

- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.

That may have been atypical, but if we can not get the dating right to a few decades, how come we 'can' get it right within a few days that the shroud was removed? I am curious to see which scientist proved that, as it would need a full explanation on how the markings came onto the shroud.

- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

Where does that follow from? Again, it would need a full and airtight explanation on how the markings got onto the shroud to conclude the method of removal has to be X or had to be Y.

And as for availability... we can not even go that far because we do not know the method.

I can tell you of horrible ways Nature can completely make a body disappear. In days. No methodology needed. But again, since we do not *know* how the markings got onto the shroud, we can not say what would have disturbed them.

For all we know the shroud can easily handle a very rough treatment.

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

No problem, take your time. I am extremely interested in doing this small forensics discussion, as the people who can do a 2000+ year cold case could immensely help me in my job.

- Thanks for the question.

And thank you for taking time to respond. I do hope you can find the energy to continue.

 

[carlitos]

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?).

How about carbon dating that shows the jacket came from the year 3260, not 1960?

 

[realpaladin]

How about carbon dating that shows the jacket came from the year 3260, not 1960?

That at least proves it was *not* JFK.

But I am trying to find out how people who are doing a 2000 year old cold case can identify a 'garment'/'cover' as belonging to a specific single person.

I talked this over with a crew of people who do this for current-day events and they say it can't be done. And if it can be done, they immediately want to hire the people that can do this as it would alleviate their task enormously.

 

[catsmate]

Take a look at http://shroud.com/, by Barrie Schwortz.

Worthless propagandising.

- Note that except for the scientists who did the carbon dating, the only scientist with hands-on experience with the Shroud (or with "sticky tape" samples taken from the Shroud) arguing against Shroud validity is Walter McCrone

Given how carefully STURP selected those who had access to the shroud is this surprising? And who'd be writing articles in reviewed journals about the shroud anyway? Except to a few desperate believers the issue is closed; the shroud is a medieval forgery, as shown by the evidence.

(who only had sticky tape samples provided to him by Alan Adler to examine).

An outright lie, either your or another believers that you unquestioningly parrot. The samples were selected under the auspices of STURP, based on detailed examination of the shroud and examined by McCrone and others (including Schwalbe and Skirius).
In fact the actual tape lifts were carried out by Ray Rogers, you can't even get that right. And McCrone examined the shroud in 1978.

Whereas, numerous Scientists with hands-on experience have written peer-reviewed articles arguing for the Shroud.

Citations required.

 

[catsmate]

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

Shroudies, at least some of them, believe the image in the cloth was made by contact with the blood of Jesus, ergo the stains must be blood. Of course the evidence shows the image to be painted............

 

[tsig]

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)
- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.
- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.
- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

- Thanks for the question.

All these facts prove that the faker knew his bible.