Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

...
- I'm pretty sure that Rogers did a lot of early testing on the sticky tapes and loaned several samples to McCrone. ...
- I wanted to scour his 2005 article before I moved on to finding articles that talked more about his use of sticky tapes.

What does the sticky tape have to do with the carbon 14 dating?

...

… Rogers did not have any access at all to the C14 sample. He was not present when the sample was cut. ...

Thanks for the information!

Pakeha,

- My claim to which you're referring is in #545:

- Do you guys generally agree that the sample selection was problematic?

- 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...

Yes. I wanted why the sample location was a problem for you.
I'm happy to wait on your replies, Jabba.
I'm genuinely interested in what convinced you the carbon 14 dating was problematic

 

[Resume]

So no miracle of the shroud then?

 

[catsmate]

So no miracle of the shroud then?

Only it's ability to inspire irrational, unquestioning acceptance.

 

[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 …

1) … 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.

2) 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.

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

4) 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 …

5)… Rogers did not have any access at all to the C14 sample.

6) 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 …

Ian,

- I'll try to get to each of your points above (eventually), but for now I'll try #6.

- From Rogers' paper
…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…


- So Ian, do you know one of the following:
1) That Gonella didn't have access to the Shroud prior to the actual cutting -- or,
2) That he wouldn't have known where the cutting was to be made when he did have access?
- If you do, can you give me a citation?

- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[Pope130]

- So Ian, do you know one of the following:
1) That Gonella didn't have access to the Shroud prior to the actual cutting -- or,
2) That he wouldn't have known where the cutting was to be made when he did have access?
- If you do, can you give me a citation?

- Thanks.
--- Jabba

If I may jump in here. Is it your contention that Gonella accessed the shroud without the knowledge of the investigators and tampered with the section that would be used for testing?

 

[IanS]

Ian,

- I'll try to get to each of your points above (eventually), but for now I'll try #6.

- From Rogers' paper
…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…


- So Ian, do you know one of the following:
1) That Gonella didn't have access to the Shroud prior to the actual cutting -- or,
2) That he wouldn't have known where the cutting was to be made when he did have access?
- If you do, can you give me a citation?

- Thanks.
--- Jabba

No. I have not the faintest Idea what Gonella or any of the other 30 or so officials were doing in the days before Riggi cut the C14 sample in front of everyone. Do you know where they all were, and what they were all doing each day?

But it’s not me who is making that claim, it’s YOU who is raising a claim here… .

... you are claiming that Gonella may have had unpublicised access to the shroud in which he somehow guessed correctly where the C14 sample would later be cut.

If you are going to make a suggestion like that, then it's up to you (not me) to provide evidence for your suggestion -

Do you actually have any evidence to show that Gonella gained unknown access to the shroud, and secretly removed a sample?




Ps - when in the above you actually asked me for a “citation”, what you were asking for was that I give you a citation where someone has published in print a proof that they knew what Gonella was doing at every minute of every day before the morning on which the sample was cut. I just add that to show how absurd it is to ask anyone for a citation for something as vague and nebulous as that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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...

This is what confuses me about you. You say that the samples being taken from just one corner and that corner being handled are problematic for the C14 dating. You're asked why you think this, and you reply "I don't know. I've been checking my sources to see if anyone else can tell me, but I've not found anything yet".

It's your assertion, and your opinion. Surely you must know why you hold that opinion? You must know why you think something to be the case. Otherwise, how can you know that it is the case? If you don't know why you think the C14 dating is problematic, then how can you think that the C14 dating is problematic?

 

[IanS]

By the way - this diversion suggesting that Gonella gave to Rogers some fibres he’d “excised” from the centre of the C14 sample, is any case rendered irrelevant in light of the examination made by the Vatican itself in 2002, which I quoted in detail in post #492 (two pages back), where …

… the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Giuseppe Ghiberti, commenting directly on Rogers paper and Rogers claim that the C14 sample must have been from a patch or repair, said this about it -


Quote from Professor Giuseppe Ghiberti (see link in post #492 for full article) -

The truth is that there is no patch and no darn. During the last analysis made in 2002, when we carried out restoration and cleaning operations, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (the leading world scholar on ancient textiles) examined the Shroud very carefully and concluded that there are no added threads.

Beyond any doubt, there is no textile patch or darn in this linen. After 500 years, the (Holland) backcloth was completely removed and we were able to see the backside: there is no darn at all.

Moreover, you apply a patch or a darn where there is a hole, while the samples had been removed in a corner area with no scorched holes and no medieval darns. I am astonished that a scholar such as Rogers has written so many inaccuracies in his article.



In light of the above from the Vatican’s own science advisor, all speculation about whether Gonella gave any sample to Rogers is rendered redundant. Because with that statement the Vatican itself has publicly said that the C14 sample was definitely not from any patch, and was definitely part of the main body of the shroud.

So it would not matter even if Rogers did have some fibres from the centre of the C14 sample. Because the above quote makes crystal clear that the C14 sample was not from any patch or anything of the sort, but was certainly part of the main body of the shroud.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Methinks we are dealing here with a dead parrot.

Hans

 

[wollery]

Ian,

- I'll try to get to each of your points above (eventually), but for now I'll try #6.

- From Rogers' paper
…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…


- So Ian, do you know one of the following:
1) That Gonella didn't have access to the Shroud prior to the actual cutting -- or,
2) That he wouldn't have known where the cutting was to be made when he did have access?
- If you do, can you give me a citation?

- Thanks.
--- Jabba

So now you argument is coming down to, "but you can't prove that Gonella didn't have access to the test area at some other time."

 

[realpaladin]

Methinks we are dealing here with a dead parrot.

Hans

Which immediately reminded of the 419 Eater's version of that sketch... brilliant!

http://youtu.be/X-XeFuBGvqs

 

[dafydd]

So no miracle of the shroud then?

No. I have no idea why Jabba wants it to be a miracle.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

So now you argument is coming down to, "but you can't prove that Gonella didn't have access to the test area at some other time."

Therefore: JESUS!

I wrote this with my thumbs

 

[Jabba]

Provision of Evidence & What Constitutes "Progress"

Ian (and others),

- At this point, I think that you and I can precisely identify one of the basic issues that we disagree about -- i.e., who has responsibility to present evidence supporting their side. I believe that both sides are responsible for presenting evidence; you believe that only my side (because of the nature of my claims) is responsible for presenting evidence.
- I suspect that if we can ever come to agreement on this issue, it will take a long time -- so, for now at least, I will try to put it aside, and focus on
1) other areas for which we should be able to identify the basic disagreements, and
2) areas that seem to have better chances of resolving.

- The next issue that we can probably agree to disagree about is "what actually makes for 'progress.'"
- I think that precisely identifying a "basic" disagreement is progress; you probably don't.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Gonella's Access and Autherization

If I may jump in here. Is it your contention that Gonella accessed the shroud without the knowledge of the investigators and tampered with the section that would be used for testing?

Pope,
- No. So far, I think that other investigators knew about Gonella's access, and that his "tampering" was fully authorized.
--- Jabba

 

[realpaladin]

- I think that precisely identifying a "basic" disagreement is progress; you probably don't.

I do not disagree here.

As far as I am concerned, and it should show in my discussion with you up until now, I have no problems in trying to fit together pieces of the puzzle.

I am only saying 'wait Jabba, this piece does not fit' (because it either is contradicted, falsified or otherwise not belonging to the puzzle).

My basic premisse is:

If we want to prove the shroud to be the image of Jesus, we need to have an undisputed and unbroken chain from the moment of burial all the way up to the present.

Mind you, some links may be weaker than others, but they must be there.

For the moment we seem to be stuck at the C14 part which is disputed. Or rather the dating.

I see two schools of thought:

1) The C14 dating has been done correctly and there is no evidence of any patching or evidence of any pollution.

2) The C14 dating has been done correctly but the pollution has resulted in an incorrect dating.

Now, as for the evidence in this case, I think proponents of 2) must bring to the table convincingly why the dating was off, because the proponents of 1) only have to point at the activities that are described in the dating procedure, which were not refuted by the Holy See.

 

[IanS]

Ian (and others),

- At this point, I think that you and I can precisely identify one of the basic issues that we disagree about -- i.e., who has responsibility to present evidence supporting their side. I believe that both sides are responsible for presenting evidence; you believe that only my side (because of the nature of my claims) is responsible for presenting evidence.

No! Absolutely not. And you tried that same evasion several pages back when saying “but guy’s you need to give me your evidence!”

Look - you, and you alone, are responsible for providing evidence to support any claims which you make.

The evidence that everyone else here has repeatedly presented to you, in microscopic detail, is the C14 tests.

You have just tried to claim that Gonella must have illicitly obtained threads from the C14 sample before it was cut. That is your claim ... you need to give evidence for that claim, or else withdraw it.

 

[Jabba]

Paheka,

- I've tried to respond to your post below before, but if I actually succeeded, I can't find my response -- so, I'll have to try again.

- I'm pretty sure that Rogers did a lot of early testing on the sticky tapes and loaned several samples to McCrone. ...
- I wanted to scour his 2005 article before I moved on to finding articles that talked more about his use of sticky tapes.

1) What does the sticky tape have to do with the carbon 14 dating?...
2) Yes. I wanted [I assume that you meant "wondered] why the sample location was a problem for you.
I'm happy to wait on your replies, Jabba.
I'm genuinely interested in what convinced you the carbon 14 dating was problematic

Re#1:
1) Apparently, Rogers took 32 tapes from all over the Shroud, and I had assumed that at least one of those was taken from the offending corner. I'll have to go back to his paper and see if he really indicates that...
2) Otherwise, given that he was actually given samples of the dating area by Gonella, he would still need samples from the rest of the Shroud for comparison.
Re#2:
1) I had understood that the offending corner was one of the two corners typically held/handled when displaying the Shroud, that handling affected dating results and that areas of relatively extreme handling have therefore been avoided when doing carbon dating.
2) It is claimed that said corner had a substantial bio-plastic coating not found on the rest of the Shroud, and I had assumed said coating was the result of handling (I'll have to check if there is any mention of that 2nd corner in regard to this issue).

--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

Pope,
- No. So far, I think that other investigators knew about Gonella's access, and that his "tampering" was fully authorized.
--- Jabba

OK, fine so just provide a reference which says that Gonella was authorised to remove part of the C14 sample at any time.

 

[tsig]

Methinks we are dealing here with a dead parrot.

Hans

He's not dead, just pineing for his faith.