dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Why bother, it's a fake.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Why bother, it's a fake.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
That's what you assumed? If a armored car guard is authorized to move money from one location to another, that does not mean he is authorized to keep some for himself.
Furthermore, if we believe these assertions we are back to the most miraculous weaver in the history of the world.A mender who could not only match the the size, color, thickness, and texture of the threads, but also be 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 this mender could perform this difficult task hundreds of times without a single error! AND that he was willing to perform this mending to repair 7 square centimeters of cloth located in a corner of the Shroud!
But wait, there's more. This mending job was so perfect, so flawless, so sublime that even UV fluoroscopy and X_ray fluoroscopy could not detect the difference in threads.
Really, Jabba!? Really, Jabba!?
We might as well believe that Jesus, Himself, rewove that corner of the cloth with some modern thread.
I consider the facts underlying your assertion more miraculous than the appearance of the image itself.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Interesting.
Jabba doesn't seem to want to talk about the C14 dating anymore, though he has clarified yet what convinced him it wa problematic.
No sources cited, though he's been repeatedly asked for them.
He's veered off into posting about 'the offending corner' and treated us to a link to what appearas to be a google translation of an obituary and his justification for that is this:
OK.
Now what does this have to do with the C14 dating?
In any case,
I wonder how Jabba's judge friend would regard such reasoning in his courtroom.
Jabba doesn't seem to want to talk about the C14 dating anymore, though he has clarified yet what convinced him it wa problematic.
No sources cited, though he's been repeatedly asked for them.
He's veered off into posting about 'the offending corner' and treated us to a link to what appearas to be a google translation of an obituary and his justification for that is this:
OK.
Now what does this have to do with the C14 dating?
In any case,
I wonder how Jabba's judge friend would regard such reasoning in his courtroom.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Jabba, don't you realize that even if all that should happen to be pefectly true, it still makes no difference? Three independent labs made C14 tests, knowing the test conditions, and all agreed that the tests were valid.
Rogers did not make ANY tests. All he made was speculation. There is a set of carefully obtained scientific data, and all you have is conjecture.
Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!
Listen mate, you don't need to loose your religion over this. The shroud of Turin is an obvious fake, and that's it! So many holy objects are fake; this is just one more, but that doesn't mean you have to give up Jesus.
Hans
You seem to be misrepresenting the chain of requests posted in respect of your suggestion that Gonella may have removed part of the C14 sample before the C14 sample was ever cut. That is -
- your own post #584 was where you first asked me if I could prove that Gonella had NOT taken such a sample (which was in effect asking me to prove a negative anyway), then after post #585 from Pope130, I asked you in post #586 if you had any evidence to support your claim (as follows) -
You then prevaricated further in your post #594 without providing the requested evidence. And in my next post #597 I again asked you if you had any such evidence where I said the following to you -
Only after those first two requests did I post #599 where for the first time I used the word “authorised” -
So what the above quotes show is that you are now being highly selective with the truth - you were first asked to provide the evidence (no mention of authorisation), then asked again for the same evidence in the next post (again, no mention of authorisation), and only at the third time of asking did I use the word “authorised”.
So, contrary what you are now claiming where you now say you thought I was only asking you whether Gonella was in charge of things, you knew perfectly well that I was asking you for evidence to back up your suggestion that Gonella may have removed part of the C14 sample before the sample was even taken (which would seem to require Gonella to have magical powers of foresight!).
However, even apart from all that, in fact Gonella was not strictly the man in charge. The Vatican owned the shroud at that time, and their main representative in charge of shroud matters was a man named Carlos Chagas in Rome.
Before the Vatican was bequeathed the shroud, after the previous owner had died, Gonella had assumed charge of shroud affairs in Turin. However that was not the case at the time when the C14 sample was cut in 1988.
If you read Gove’s book, it becomes clear that Gonella continuously did try to act as if he was in charge, and he had several heated arguments with Chagas and others on that point. In fact it is clear from Gove’s book that Gonella was a thoroughly awkward and devious individual who argued with many people.
But whatever Gonella’s own assumed position of power, like everyone else he would still have needed specific permission from the Vatican before he would have been allowed even to touch the shroud, let alone secretly remove illicit samples from a site earmarked to be shortly removed for C14 tests.
So in summary -
1. I did not ask you whether Gonella was in charge of anything.
2. You still have not provided any evidence or any reference showing Gonella had illicitly removed part of the C14 sample.
3. It’s an entirely irrelevant blind alley anyway, because even the Vatican itself has disowned Rogers claim, saying the C14 sample was certainly not part of any repair and was correctly taken as part of the main body of the shroud.
So there is no doubt that Rogers was wrong to think the C14 sample was from a patch, and the Vatican’s owned science advisor has been quoted saying that in the clearest possible terms.
We have now gone 17 pages without you ever producing any independent truthful evidence for anyone suggesting the C14 might be wrong.
If you are going to continue to argue about it then you need to produce independent genuine evidence against the C14 (not biased fraudulent claims from shroud fanatics and Catholic priests).
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
With shrouddies, once you are accepting a miracle or two, half a dozen more is routine.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Was Rogers lying about Gonella's help?
- It COULD be that presenting (what I consider to be) evidence a little at a time, as I encounter it, is problematic. I think, however, that it can be very useful as well – allowing us to keep a relatively narrow focus.
- Whatever, that’s how I’ll try to do it for now, and see what happens.
- You guys were right – I had assumed wrongly. It was really Cardinal Ballestrero who ultimately authorized whatever. But then, at least according to Ian Wilson (a Shroudie), both Gonella and Riggi claimed authorization from Ballestrero to take and store samples from the Shroud for future research. And then, according to Rogers, Gonella supplied him with such. Personally, I see very little reason to suspect that Rogers was lying about that exchange...
From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n67part9.pdf
Ten years after the STURP examination, Riggi again became a key player in Shroud
matters when on April 21, 1988 the Shroud was secretly taken out of its storage
container for samples to be cut from it for carbon dating purposes. Besides Riggi’s
arranging the only videotaping of the event – at his own personal expense – it was he
who throughout much of that day was in direct charge of everything that required
some direct handling of the Shroud. Closely watched by the representatives of the
three appointed carbon dating laboratories, he personally cut from one corner the
agreed 7 x 1 cm sliver, then divided this into the portions already agreed as sufficient
for each laboratory’s needs. .
This left over one significant-size portion kept back under Cardinal Ballestrero’s
control as ‘reserve’, and also three fragments that he had trimmed away as unsuitable
for, and superfluous to, the needs of the C14 tesing. These he placed in a Petri dish,
which he then put into a manila envelope (fastened with string sealed in red sealing
wax impressed with his and Gonella’s personal seals), subsequently to be stored in a
bank vault. Later that same day, in the presence of some twenty witnesses, he also
took samples from the bloody area in the back of the head section of the Shroud
imprint. These too he arranged to be stored in a bank vault under his personal
control. As he and Gonella subsequently insisted, Cardinal Ballestrero had given them full permission to take such initiatives for the benefit of future Shroud research, and in the light of the open, official manner in which they took the samples and documented these, there is no reason to doubt this.Thus when in May 1993 American physician Dr. Garza Leoncio-Valdes arrived in
Turin looking for samples of the Shroud to examine in pursuance of his idea of how
the C14 date might have been skewed, Riggi readily volunteered samples from both
the ‘superfluous’ fragments that he had trimmed away from the C14 sample, also
from the back-of-the-head bloodstains.
Very sadly, however, the publicity that became aroused by Garza-Valdes’s
subsequent ‘unofficial’ usage of these materials, including his arranging for the
back-of-the-head blood samples to be DNA tested at a laboratory in San Antonio,
Texas, led to some serious questions being asked by Cardinal Balletrero’s immediate
successor as Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini. Saldarini asked for
the return of all such samples of the Shroud held by outsiders, and from about time on
Riggi and Gonella would play less prominent roles in Shroud matters.
From as early as the 1970s Riggi was associated with Italy’s Fondazione 3M, and
entrusted extensive archive of his Shroud materials. into their care, a collection which
apparently remains available to all bona fide Shroud researchers. When Luigi Gonella died in August of last year Riggi began planning to incorporate his friend’s equally extensive Shroud materials into the same archive.
- So, at least Wilson's description of events makes Rogers' claim about Gonella's help sound perfectly reasonable -- it seems to me.
--- Jabba
- It COULD be that presenting (what I consider to be) evidence a little at a time, as I encounter it, is problematic. I think, however, that it can be very useful as well – allowing us to keep a relatively narrow focus.
- Whatever, that’s how I’ll try to do it for now, and see what happens.
- You guys were right – I had assumed wrongly. It was really Cardinal Ballestrero who ultimately authorized whatever. But then, at least according to Ian Wilson (a Shroudie), both Gonella and Riggi claimed authorization from Ballestrero to take and store samples from the Shroud for future research. And then, according to Rogers, Gonella supplied him with such. Personally, I see very little reason to suspect that Rogers was lying about that exchange...
From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n67part9.pdf
Ten years after the STURP examination, Riggi again became a key player in Shroud
matters when on April 21, 1988 the Shroud was secretly taken out of its storage
container for samples to be cut from it for carbon dating purposes. Besides Riggi’s
arranging the only videotaping of the event – at his own personal expense – it was he
who throughout much of that day was in direct charge of everything that required
some direct handling of the Shroud. Closely watched by the representatives of the
three appointed carbon dating laboratories, he personally cut from one corner the
agreed 7 x 1 cm sliver, then divided this into the portions already agreed as sufficient
for each laboratory’s needs. .
This left over one significant-size portion kept back under Cardinal Ballestrero’s
control as ‘reserve’, and also three fragments that he had trimmed away as unsuitable
for, and superfluous to, the needs of the C14 tesing. These he placed in a Petri dish,
which he then put into a manila envelope (fastened with string sealed in red sealing
wax impressed with his and Gonella’s personal seals), subsequently to be stored in a
bank vault. Later that same day, in the presence of some twenty witnesses, he also
took samples from the bloody area in the back of the head section of the Shroud
imprint. These too he arranged to be stored in a bank vault under his personal
control. As he and Gonella subsequently insisted, Cardinal Ballestrero had given them full permission to take such initiatives for the benefit of future Shroud research, and in the light of the open, official manner in which they took the samples and documented these, there is no reason to doubt this.Thus when in May 1993 American physician Dr. Garza Leoncio-Valdes arrived in
Turin looking for samples of the Shroud to examine in pursuance of his idea of how
the C14 date might have been skewed, Riggi readily volunteered samples from both
the ‘superfluous’ fragments that he had trimmed away from the C14 sample, also
from the back-of-the-head bloodstains.
Very sadly, however, the publicity that became aroused by Garza-Valdes’s
subsequent ‘unofficial’ usage of these materials, including his arranging for the
back-of-the-head blood samples to be DNA tested at a laboratory in San Antonio,
Texas, led to some serious questions being asked by Cardinal Balletrero’s immediate
successor as Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini. Saldarini asked for
the return of all such samples of the Shroud held by outsiders, and from about time on
Riggi and Gonella would play less prominent roles in Shroud matters.
From as early as the 1970s Riggi was associated with Italy’s Fondazione 3M, and
entrusted extensive archive of his Shroud materials. into their care, a collection which
apparently remains available to all bona fide Shroud researchers. When Luigi Gonella died in August of last year Riggi began planning to incorporate his friend’s equally extensive Shroud materials into the same archive.
- So, at least Wilson's description of events makes Rogers' claim about Gonella's help sound perfectly reasonable -- it seems to me.
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Illicit removal of threads
--- Jabba
- But Ian, that never was my claim. I never said anything about threads being illicitly obtained.
--- Jabba
Dear me, come on!
You are now arguing about the word "illicit" ...
... but it would most definitely have been "illicit" for Gonella to have quote " excised threads from the centre of the C14 sample " ... wouldn't it!?
Look, I am not trying to trip you up here, truly! But you are really going to have to face facts. And the plain & very obvious fact to everyone here, is you are not able to overturn the C14 results.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
^^^
Not only that, Jabba seems to think obituaries trump C14 testing.
Is there any confirmation of this story whatsoever?
Jabba, surely you can come up with something outside of obituaries to explain why you find the C14 dating to be problematic.
We'll see what happens when you post up something that shows why the C14 dating is problematic.
Not only that, Jabba seems to think obituaries trump C14 testing.
Is there any confirmation of this story whatsoever?
Jabba, surely you can come up with something outside of obituaries to explain why you find the C14 dating to be problematic.
We'll see what happens when you post up something that shows why the C14 dating is problematic.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Perhaps not. The 14C sample was cut from the same part of the Shroud as the previous sample was. It would be easy to infer which part of the Shroud would be cut. But there is absolutely no evidence that a thread was removed.
....................................
Furthermore, Jabba, as has been pointed out many times, you have to show how a team of scientists using cutting edge technology did not recognize a mending BEFORE you try to prove the provenance and the age of a single thread.
Last edited:
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Apparently so. On the other hand, if they had spilled molten silver on the Shroud and it was not damaged in any way, that would be a pretty impressive miracle.
Well iirc - Rogers quote was that Gonella had "excised" some threads from the "centre" of the C14 sample ... that would take a monumentally brilliant guess from Gonella to know in advance where the "centre" of that sample might have later turned out to be.
If Gonella did have any threads which he passed to Rogers, then I expect they would have most likely been from one the earlier samples which were known to have been taken between 1978 and 1988 simply by using sticky tape to pick up loose debris from the surface of the shroud.
However, if for a moment we indulge Jabba and assume that Gonella and Rogers were basically telling the truth about Gonella giving a sample like that to Rogers, and if we want to speculate on what might have been said, then perhaps Gonella might have sent a sample like that to Rogers saying something like " I took these thread samples from all over the shroud with sticky tape in 19xx (whatever the date), so some of those must be from the region of the C14 sample, see what you can find out from those " .
But debris like that, collected on sticky tape, seems to me almost worthless, since hundreds of people have handled the shroud since the 13th-14th century, so presumably all sorts of fibres, dust and other detritus must have accumulated on the surface of the shroud ... that sort of loose microscopic debris would not necessarily be an original integral part of the cloth anyway.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,022
I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?
- the fact that examination of the sampled area, both before and after removal, showed that it was not part of a patch
- the lack of historical record for the shroud's existence prior to ~1355
- the fact that the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery
- the textile analysis
- the pigment analyses, microscopical and chemical
- the iconographic similarity to other religious art of the period
- the ease with which the shroud has been replicated using period methods
- the lack of correspondence of the image on the cloth to that which would result from it being used as a shroud
- the fact that the sloth does not correspond to the usual Jewish burial practices and even the biblical description
We still haven't seen any evidence that any threads were retained.
As for your opinion of Rogers' honesty, this is worth nothing.
No it doesn't. There is still no evidence that any threads from the sample removed for radiocarbon were retained, much less supplied to Rogers.
Then who authorised the transfer of material to Rogers? I'm sure you'll be supplying the paper trail soon.
Whoa, yeah I didn’t think of that … 3M scientific quality there. Ouch! OK, I know … look, don’t tell Jabba about that, right … or else he’ll pounce on that in a flash!
ps - only kidding Jabba (I’m not poking fun, really!).
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
I concede all points.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
If I may add to catsmate1's list
- the fact that examination of the sampled area, both before and after removal, showed that it was not part of a patch
- the lack of historical record for the shroud's existence prior to ~1355
- the fact that the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery
- the fact that the modern RCC accepts that the Shroud was not the burial cloth of Jesus.
- the textile analysis including types of analysis that did not exist in the 1300's (UV and X-ray fluorescence)
- the pigment analyses, microscopical and chemical
- the iconographic similarity to other religious art of the period including dimensions, which if were associated with a living person, would defy all rational explanation
- the ease with which the shroud has been replicated using period methods
- the lack of correspondence of the image on the cloth to that which would result from it being used as a shroud
- the fact that the cloth does not correspond to the usual Jewish burial practices and even the biblical description
Last edited:
- Status