Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[realpaladin]

Paladin,
- I read the whole paper and understood it totally...
- I think you're just showing the difficulty in having much confidence in lignin testing. If so, my first response is that whatever the problems, the claim by Rogers is that the dating sample shows a totally different result than does the rest of the Shroud -- which would seem to resolve, or at least weaken, that objection re the dating confidence. From the Rogers' article:

All threads from the Raes sample and the yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample show
colored encrustations (or coatings) on their surfaces (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The coating material is not
removed by nonpolar solvents, but it swells and dissolves in water. There was absolutely no
coating with these characteristics on either the Holland cloth or the main part of the shroud. When
Raes and radiocarbon-sample threads were teased open at both ends with a dissecting needle, the
cores appeared to be colorless, suggesting the color and its vehicle were added by wiping a viscous
liquid on the outside of the yarn. A marked difference between inside and outside fibers is
characteristic of both the Raes and radiocarbon samples. The yellow–brown coating on the outside
of the radiocarbon warp sample is so heavy that it looks black by transmitted light (Fig. 2).
Chemical tests on both the radiocarbon and Raes samples show their coatings to consist of a plant
gum containing alizarin dye present in two forms. Some is dissolved in the gum, giving it a yellow
color. A variable amount is complexed with hydrous aluminum oxide [AlO(OH)] to form red lakes
(Fig. 3). The lakes are gelatinous and usually very small. A good microscope is required to observe
them, and the gum vehicle for the dye/mordant system on the Raes and radiocarbon samples makes
it difficult to observe the lakes. The gum cannot be removed without damaging the lakes, but it can
be made invisible by matching its index of refraction in a 1.515 index oil. With the gum invisible
or swelled slightly in water, it is easy to see the lakes suspended in the gum and stuck to the fibers.
Fig. 3 shows (upper left) colloidal red dye lakes suspended in the gum. To the right of that, some
discrete lakes can be seen adhering to the surface of a cotton fiber. Several areas of yellow-dyed
gum can be seen. Four cotton fibers and two flax fibers appear in the view. The radiocarbon
sample contains both a gum/dye/mordant coating and cotton fibers. The main part of the shroud
does not contain these materials.

- So,
1) Do you find my claim about resolving, or at least weakening, the objection re the dating confidence coherent? And, if so,
2) Would you agree?

- Thanks,
--- Jabba

This article: http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

explains in a goodly amount of words, to which I mostly agree, why I can not accept that claim of resolving or weakening...

The short version is simply:

- Rogers never has examined the rest of the shroud
- His article is incorrect in his claims on lignin
- This yes/no of lignin has no influence on any carbon dating.

Sorry.

 

[Jabba]

This article: http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

explains in a goodly amount of words, to which I mostly agree, why I can not accept that claim of resolving or weakening...

The short version is simply:

1) - Rogers never has examined the rest of the shroud
2) - His article is incorrect in his claims on lignin
3) - This yes/no of lignin has no influence on any carbon dating.

Sorry.

Paladin
- That's all right ,
Re #1: But Rogers was a member of the original team, and also had -- and apparently, carefully examined -- the sticky tapes and fibers taken from all over the Shroud.
--- Jabba

 

[Ladewig]

- Hmm. I really thought you guys would agree with that... Oh well.

Do you understand why we don't consider those concerns serious?

If we asked you to summarize our position on these assertions, could you do it accurately?

 

[Jabba]

- Do you guys generally agree that the sample selection was problematic? To me --
1) Limiting the sample to one small piece, rather than several small pieces spaced out over the Shroud; and
2) Using a corner piece often handled over the past 700 years (at least)
-- are both problematic to being comfortable with the results, whatever the results might be.

Do you understand why we don't consider those concerns serious?

If we asked you to summarize our position on these assertions, could you do it accurately?

Ladewig,
- I've been thinking about other things -- but for the moment, I think I can understand your lack of concern with the handling (apparently, it would take an enormous amount of handling to produce the results the daters got). While I still think that the handling is problematic, I'm now wondering that it really isn't something to be much concerned about -- but, I need to do more recollecting and reading on that issue...
- But, just one small piece -- and, it being a corner -- does seem concernably problematic to me. As I recall, those doing the testing had decided to take 7 different pieces from all over the Shroud, but their wishes were ultimately vetoed by the clergy involved.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

I read the whole paper and understood it totally...
- I think you're just showing the difficulty in having much confidence in lignin testing.

Correct.The ligin/vallinin testing is worthless. Even Rogers own "papers" support this.

If so, my first response is that whatever the problems, the claim by Rogers is that the dating sample shows a totally different result than does the rest of the Shroud

This claim has been dealt with. Repeatedly. Rogers is lying; he did not have access to any remnant of the sample taken for radiocarbon dating.

which would seem to resolve, or at least weaken, that objection re the dating confidence.

No it doesn't. The dating stands.

From the Rogers' article:<repetition of Rogers' lies snipped>
So,
1) Do you find my claim about resolving, or at least weakening, the objection re the dating confidence coherent? And, if so,
2) Would you agree?

- Thanks,
--- Jabba

No. All it weakens is any tendency to take the lies and distortions of shroudies seriously.

Here, I'm deleting a triplicate...

Yeah, it happens.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
- I've been thinking about other things -- but for the moment, I think I can understand your lack of concern with the handling (apparently, it would take an enormous amount of handling to produce the results the daters got). While I still think that the handling is problematic, I'm now wondering that it really isn't something to be much concerned about -- but, I need to do more recollecting and reading on that issue...
- But, just one small piece -- and, it being a corner -- does seem concernably problematic to me. As I recall, those doing the testing had decided to take 7 different pieces from all over the Shroud, but their wishes were ultimately vetoed by the clergy involved.
--- Jabba

So, the answer to my question is: No, you cannot accurately describe the positions that we have been repeating for 15 pages.

No progress has been made; no progress will be made.

 

[realpaladin]

Paladin
- That's all right ,
Re #1: But Rogers was a member of the original team, and also had -- and apparently, carefully examined -- the sticky tapes and fibers taken from all over the Shroud.
--- Jabba

Well, I am having a problem with the sticky tape story to begin with...

I have no other proof than Roger's say-so, and that is not enough to convince me.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, I am having a problem with the sticky tape story to begin with...

I have no other proof than Roger's say-so, and that is not enough to convince me.

I love the dichotomy.

Let's see, we have a large group of experts who took years to establish acceptable protocols for carrying out radioisotopic dating, and more experts who did like a month of study to select the proper part of the shroud to date.

But that is questioned ("it might be in error, although I can't explain why") because a guy claims to have come to a different conclusion by using a non-reliable dating methodology on samples of unknown origin.

Jabba, I wish you would apply the same level of scrutiny to Rogers as you do to the isotopic dating. If you would, you would see why it doesn't even pass the laugh test.

 

[Jabba]

Well, I am having a problem with the sticky tape story to begin with...

I have no other proof than Roger's say-so, and that is not enough to convince me.

Paladin,
- Here's evidence for his STURP participation - http://www.shroud.com/78team.htm.
- I'll track down what I've read about the sticky tape and get back to you.
--- Jabba

 

[Marduk]

- But, just one small piece -- and, it being a corner -- does seem concernably problematic to me. As I recall, those doing the testing had decided to take 7 different pieces from all over the Shroud, but their wishes were ultimately vetoed by the clergy involved.
--- Jabba

it doesn't matter if it was a corner or not, carbon-14 distribution doesn't discriminate like believers do

 

[realpaladin]

Paladin,
- Here's evidence for his STURP participation - http://www.shroud.com/78team.htm.
- I'll track down what I've read about the sticky tape and get back to you.
--- Jabba

The STURP I accept, just not that he waited with his sticky tape (if I were to accept he really had them) until after the c14 results came in.

But please do, and as always, in your own good time.

 

[catsmate]

Well, I am having a problem with the sticky tape story to begin with...

I have no other proof than Roger's say-so, and that is not enough to convince me.

Paladin,
- Here's evidence for his STURP participation - http://www.shroud.com/78team.htm.
- I'll track down what I've read about the sticky tape and get back to you.
--- Jabba

The STURP I accept, just not that he waited with his sticky tape (if I were to accept he really had them) until after the c14 results came in.

But please do, and as always, in your own good time.

Rogers claimed to have fibres from the sample removed for radiocarbon dating and to have compared them to other samples from the shroud; the samples removed for dating were destroyed, as verified by the laboratories responsible. Ergo he's lying.
Or, to be charitable, he's gullible, stupid and stubborn and someone else passed him fake fibres.
Given that, despite saying "let’s be honest about our science", Rogers omits mention McCrone's examination of the shroud from his paper and also fails to mention the pigment traces found on the cloth.

 

[pakeha]

Indeed, yes. The links also indicate that the team studied both sides of the Shroud before selecting a sample for testing. I want to emphasize what that means. If that area were mended, then that would mean that the menders not only were able to match the the size, color, thickness, and texture of the threads, but they were also able to untwist the ends of the threads already in the Shroud and then splice their threads onto the ends of each of the original threads. Or, more precisely, splice a new thread onto the end of an old thread in such a way that 20th century optics could not detect the joining of these two threads. AND that there were to perform this difficult task hundreds of times without a single error! AND that they were willing to perform this mending to repair 70 square centimeters of cloth located in a corner of the Shroud! ....

-
- At this point, whether or not the corner was (or, included) a patch is not my focus. I don’t see this as “hand-waving” (per ladewig), as I will happily address the patch issue if we get that far. ...

...even the Vatican itself agrees that the C14 sample was definitely not taken from any "patch" or anything of the sort. The Vatican's own science advisor even went as far as to say that Ray Rogers suggestion of a "patch" was complete nonsense! ...

-...- Do you guys generally agree that the sample selection was problematic? To me --
1) Limiting the sample to one small piece, rather than several small pieces spaced out over the Shroud; and
2) Using a corner piece often handled over the past 700 years (at least)
-- are both problematic to being comfortable with the results, whatever the results might be.

--- Jabba

- Hmm. I really thought you guys would agree with that... Oh well.

Ladewig,
- I've been thinking about other things...
- But, just one small piece -- and, it being a corner -- does seem concernably problematic to me.
--- Jabba

Right.
Why is the sample location 'problematic', Jabba?

 

[Jabba]

The STURP I accept, just not that he waited with his sticky tape (if I were to accept he really had them) until after the c14 results came in.

But please do, and as always, in your own good time.

Paladin,

- I'm not sure that I'm really addressing your points in my responses, but the effort should eventually get me properly oriented.
- I'm pretty sure that Rogers did a lot of early testing on the sticky tapes and loaned several samples to McCrone. Otherwise, from his 2005 article, some more discussion on what he was working from.

…Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology cut the 1973 sample [4]
mentioned by Damon et al. [1]. Raes found that one part of his sample contained cotton, but the
part on the other side of a seam did not. He reported that the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern
variety, Gossypium herbaceum, on the basis of the distance between reversals in the tape-shaped
fibers (about eight per centimeter). I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof.
Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I
photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of
the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments
have been preserved.
As part of the shroud of turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all
areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978 [2]. Ronald Youngquist of the Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Corporation produced the tape specifically for the project; an
amorphous, inert, pure-hydrocarbon adhesive that would not contaminate the shroud or the
samples. It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates, and the
adhesive could be removed by washing with xylene. I applied the tapes to the surface of the shroud
with a pressure-measuring applicator to enable semi-quantitative comparisons among samples…

…On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella
had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that
he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample…


- I wanted to scour his 2005 article before I moved on to finding articles that talked more about his use of sticky tapes.

--- Jabba

 

[MRC_Hans]

Paladin,

- I'm not sure that I'm really addressing your points in my responses, but the effort should eventually get me properly oriented.
- I'm pretty sure that Rogers did a lot of early testing on the sticky tapes and loaned several samples to McCrone. Otherwise, from his 2005 article, some more discussion on what he was working from.

…Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology cut the 1973 sample [4]
mentioned by Damon et al. [1]. Raes found that one part of his sample contained cotton, but the
part on the other side of a seam did not. He reported that the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern
variety, Gossypium herbaceum, on the basis of the distance between reversals in the tape-shaped
fibers (about eight per centimeter). I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof.
Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I
photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of
the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments
have been preserved.
As part of the shroud of turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all
areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978 [2]. Ronald Youngquist of the Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Corporation produced the tape specifically for the project; an
amorphous, inert, pure-hydrocarbon adhesive that would not contaminate the shroud or the
samples. It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates, and the
adhesive could be removed by washing with xylene. I applied the tapes to the surface of the shroud
with a pressure-measuring applicator to enable semi-quantitative comparisons among samples…

…On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella
had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that
he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample…


- I wanted to scour his 2005 article before I moved on to finding articles that talked more about his use of sticky tapes.

--- Jabba

I'm sorry, Jabba, but this is going in circles. The reason is that your actual argument is as follows:

"I really really want the shroud of Turin to be genuine, so I would really really like you all to disregard the evidence to the contrary."

There is nothing wrong with wanting that, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this basis.

Hans

 

[IanS]

This article: http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

explains in a goodly amount of words, to which I mostly agree, why I can not accept that claim of resolving or weakening...

The short version is simply:

- Rogers never has examined the rest of the shroud
- His article is incorrect in his claims on lignin
- This yes/no of lignin has no influence on any carbon dating.

Sorry.

Paladin
- That's all right ,
Re #1: But Rogers was a member of the original team, and also had -- and apparently, carefully examined -- the sticky tapes and fibers taken from all over the Shroud.
--- Jabba

For the sake of others here, if not for Jabba, who is clearly in a state of complete religious self-delusion and cannot tell honset fact from dishonest fiction …

… Ray Rogers was not either a member of any “original team” connected in any way to the radiocarbon dating, nor was he present when the C14 sample was cut. He had nothing whatever to do with any such relevant “team”, and he was never involved at any stage.

Rogers was a long time member of the completely discredited dishonest shroud fundamentalist group called STURP. And he had been trying to publish the same pro-shroud papers for decades.

Rogers never had any access whatsoever to the C14 cloth samples.

So far as Rogers claims in Spectrochim Acta are concerned - apart from the fact that that paper has already been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread (eg the Vatican science advisor himself checked the shroud in detail, and reported that the C14 sample was definitely not from any patch and that Rogers claim of a patch was untrue), apart from all that …

… Rogers did not have any access at all to the C14 sample. He was not present when the sample was cut. In his paper, Rogers claimed that he was given some threads from the C14 sample by Luigi Gonella, apparently on the basis that Gonella had somehow mysteriously and fraudulently obtained such threads without anyone else ever knowing. But that cannot be true either, because Gonella was not the man who cut the C14 sample … the C14 sample was cut by a Turin Vatican representative named Giovanni Riggi …

… the procedure was, with 20 people watching in close attendance, as well as video film being recorded - Riggi cut a 7cm strip from the shroud in the area adjacent to where a sample had previously been cut for a guy called Gilbert Raes in 1973.

In full close view of everyone present, Riggi then cut that strip into 3 roughly equal lengths and passed the 3 pieces to Michael Tite (who was head of the British Museum Research laboratory), who placed each piece on a foil sheet and wrapped the foil over to completely enclose each piece of the shroud. Tite then placed each of the 3 pieces into 3 specially machined stainless steel cylinders, which he then sealed and passed to the representatives from each of the 3 chosen radiocarbon labs.

Gonella was not involved at all in any part of that, and the only people who handled or touched the samples were Riggi and Tite.

So just to spell that out - Gonella never had access to any thread from any of the C14 samples. And he could not have given any such thing to Rogers.

In his Spectrochim Acta paper, Rogers says he used a few microscopic fibres which had originally come from the Raes sample taken in 1973, plus he claims, a few microscopic threads he got from Gonella and which he believed had come from the C14 sample. But as I’ve just explained, that was impossible, because Gonella never had access to the C14 sample.

The Vatican officials and the various members of STUP did of course have various tiny microscopic threads and dust particles that had been collected from the shroud since about 1970 just by using sticky Cello-tape to pick up loose fragments from the surface of the shroud. That had been done several times between about 1970 to 1988. So it’s quite possible that either Gonella, Riggi, or any of about 40 other intervals from the Vatican shroud group or STURP could have passed a few threads to Rogers … those sort of threads and dust particles had been in circulation for decades before Rogers 2005 paper … but those micro samples had nothing whatever to do with the 7cm strip that was cut by Riggi for the C14 in 1988.

That entire procedure was recounted to Harry Gove by Paul Damon, who was (as I recall) present throughout as the head of the US radiocarbon lab. See page 260 of Gove’s book.

The video film of that entire procedure was also acquired by BBC TV in the UK, and apparently was later shown in the UK on BBC national TV.

 

[IanS]

Edit - spelling correction in the last para. of the above post, where " intervals" should have said "individuals".

... or any of about 40 other intervals individuals from the Vatican shroud group or STURP ....

 

[MRC_Hans]

Edit - spelling correction in the last para. of the above post, where " intervals" should have said "individuals".

Not that it makes that much difference .....


... Ahh, sorry. To sum up, however:

The attempts to discredit the C14 test have failed, miserably.
Thus, the C14 test stands.
Thus, to merit ANY further discussion in the authenticy of the shroud of Turin one must either:

1) Provide a new, credible defusing of the C14 test.
2) Provide new (because none exist currently) evidence of authenticy that are strong enouth to trumph a C14 test.
3) Preferably, both of the above.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Right.
Why is the sample location 'problematic', Jabba?

Pakeha,

- My claim to which you're referring is in #545:
- Do you guys generally agree that the sample selection was problematic? To me --
1) Limiting the sample to one small piece, rather than several small pieces spaced out over the Shroud; and
2) Using a corner piece often handled over the past 700 years (at least)
-- are both problematic to being comfortable with the results, whatever the results might be.

- That was followed by ladewig, in #547 (referring to #2, above)...
What's wrong with that?
Do you even know what C14 dating is? It examines the isotopic makeup of the material in the cloth itself, and is not examine the surface. Shoot, what you want to do is to actually remove as much off the surface as possible, which, of course, is what the labs did (because they are not idiots). By pgwenthold, #546.
- And...
Fingerprints do not effect C14 dating, so the only way that handling could distort the date would be if someone were eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich before handling the cloth or if someone wiped his nose before handling the cloth. Even then the only way one could end up with a result in the 1300's would be if the contamination on the Shroud sample weighed more than the Shroud sample itself. Please think about that: for the it-was-handled-too-much argument to hold any water at all, one has to accept
1) that the dirt and grime weighed more than the fabric sample itself!
2) that a collection of more than a dozen people using microscopes DIDN'T NOTICE that much dirt and grime on the fabric!
3) that professional C14-dating labs were too incompetent to properly wash and prepare the samples!

- Then by ladewig in #550,
Also, when you say that there is a problem with "using a corner piece often handled over the past 700 years," how many times do you think that that particular 70-square centimeter piece was touched ? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

- And by Paladin in #552,
Experimentation is the key here... you can try this at home!
I asked my partner to fold up a few bedsheets before putting then in the laundry. I asked her to put some blue chalkdust on her hands before handling each sheet.
Then I showed her a few foldings (as much as I gathered from Googling images and the Edessa cloth iconography) and she went to work.
I won't spoil the end result, but Jabba, I suggest you try this yourself and then answer which area was touched most.
One important thing: the folder must not know your motive!

- Whatever, I didn't have immediate answers for these questions and objections...
- So I figured I had best see if I can find any good ones...
- So far, I haven't...

- But then, you guys shouldn't get your hopes up (even though all of the quoted posts were entered almost two days ago) -- I've had other things to do.

--- Jabba

 

[realpaladin]

- But then, you guys shouldn't get your hopes up (even though all of the quoted posts were entered almost two days ago) -- I've had other things to do.

--- Jabba

Well, as I allways say... in your own good time. I see patience as a virtue. I am in longer discussions on this forum... one is going on for about 3 years now.

So take your time. I will get notified if and when you reply.