Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

Of course, your assertion brings us back to the miraculous-weaver theory. Someone rewove the cloth in such a perfect manner that high powered microscopes could not detect where the authentic area ended and the rewoven area began.

There is also a rather obvious and what seems to me an even bigger and more absurd issue with claims of an invisible repair. Namely …

… all the other repairs which were made by the Poor Clare Nuns after a fire in 1532, are very obvious to anyone standing within 10ft of the shroud. They are not concealed repairs in any way at all.

Those are repairs which are all fairly close to the image.

However, the site of the C14 sample is on a corner edge at the "hem" of the cloth, and is nowhere near any part of the image.

The obvious question is - since all the other repairs are so obvious and are in important areas right next to the image, why (let alone how!) would anyone go to the seemingly impossible trouble of making a microscopically invisible repair in a tiny insignificant corner edge of the cloth nowhere near any part of the image?

That would not make any sense at all. Even it were possible, nobody would bother to attempt that … least of all people who were happy with whopping great big patches easily visible to anyone from 10ft away.

 

[IanS]

- It looks like no one here agrees with me that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have -- or, even that such is a very reasonable possibility...
- So, I'm going to see if I can find more info on the subject.
--- Jabba

As I have explained to you dozens of times now - the above is not the main problem re. any sample from Gonella. The main problem is ...

... even if Rogers did have a C14 sample from Gonella, it does not change the fact that there is a mountain of evidence to discredit his suggestion that the C14 dates must have been from a patch ...

... for the 10th time - the Vatican's own science advisor and the Vatican’s own textile expert both examined the C14 site in detail, inc. studying photo-micrographs, from both sides of the shroud after the backing cloth was removed in 2002, and they are both quoted many times saying (paraphrasing) -

- " there is definitely no repair or patch or re-weave anywhere at or near the C14 sample area. Rogers is definitely wrong to claim there is any such patch. There is definitely no patch or repair. "

Also - all three radiocarbon labs took photo-micrograph pictures of their samples, and all three have said there was definitely no such patch or repair in any of the samples they had.

And - when the C14 sample was actually taken in 1988, there were 20 to 30 people in close attendance, all agreeing that the sample was being cut from an area that was definitely not part of any patch or repair. That procedure was also recorded on video film as well as on hundreds of still photos.

And - as Mark Antonacci (who is actually a shroud believer who has written a fairly recent book about the shroud) has pointed out, there are in fact around 5000 to 7000 photo-micrograph pictures of the shroud threads and it’s weaving, many of those showing the C14 site in microscopic detail, and not one of those photos shows any trace of any repair, patch or "re-weave".

If you have not already read the article by Anonacci addressing the problems with Rogers paper, then you need to read that before going any further. Here again is the link to Antonacci’s article (which is entirely about Rogers paper) -

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

And - see my above post #701 for why its absurd to believe that anyone would attempt a microscopically invisible repair in an insignificant corner of the cloth well away from the image.


Against all that -

Ray Rogers is a lifelong member of the religious shroud group STURP.

STURP have made so many fraudulent and dishonest claims about their members so-called "scientific tests" on the shroud, that the group is now completely discredited as, to be blunt about it, a group of unmitigated crackpot liars.

The only people who claim that the C14 area was a patch are Christian shroud fanatics such as the members of STURP.

STURP is the shroud equivalent of Michael Behe's group of crackpot creationists whose deliberate dishonesty was so clearly exposed in the Dover Trial.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you have not already read the article by Anonacci addressing the problems with Rogers paper, then you need to read that before going any further. Here again is the link to Antonacci’s article (which is entirely about Rogers paper) -

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

I will now run a sweepstakes on the possible replies.

1) *Ignore*
2) "That's interesting, and I will read the article when I've got time", followed by 1)
3) "I believe the sample to be problematic, and I'll look for some evidence that this is so"
4) "I believe the sample to be problematic, because of [something already thoroughly discussed and discredited in this thread]"
5) "I see no reason why Rogers should lie"
6) "You cannot prove that Rogers is lying"
7) "I would like to narrow my focus. To this end, I think it would be productive if we spent the next 17 pages working on a definition of the word 'fibre' that we can all agree on".
8) "Could somebody please remind me who Antonacci is?"
9) *Posts link to own website*
10) "I would like to move on from this subject and will never mention it again. I would now like to focus my attention to the next item on my list - that of the dirt samples taken with sticky-tape"

My money's on 4.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Again, I'm not sure to what you're referring.
--- Jabba

Sigh. The analyses of the textile form which the shroud cloth is made. The analyses that show the cloth does not dated for the alleged period of Jesus.

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- It's my understanding that most research (by far) has concluded that any sign of pigment is miniscule.
--- Jabba

Yet again rubbish. There are several conclusive analyses, most notably by McCrone (who STURP tried to silence) showing that the image on the cloth was painted and that traces of other material, typical of an artists studio were found.

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I haven't really thought much about this issue.
- One question is, "Just how similar is it"?
- Otherwise, it has been suggested that any real similarity is due to the Shroud's actual presence as tradition suggests -- that artist depiction was originally based upon the Shroud.
--- Jabba

More rubbish I'm afraid. Firstly there are examples that pre-date the shroud's emergence c. 1355 (and don't try spouting that nonsense about there being "evidence" of its earlier existence unless you can supply some) and secondly (and this probably is a surprise to a believer like yourself) the shorud wasn't a significant influence on others; it was a local wonder whom most knowledgeable people knew was a fake.

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- In my opinion, that's a myth.
--- Jabba

And now you're in full blown denial mode............
You've been linked to a video showing the duplication of the shroud, something that's been done several times.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Offhand, I can't remember much about the proposed explanation(s), but at least one sounded reasonable to me.
--- Jabba

Wow........................... You've heard (allegedly) and explaination that satisfied you (someone who's demonstrated enormous credulity regardiung the shroud) and we're supposed to accept this?

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- In my opinion,
1) It deviates from the usual practices only in ways to be expected given the alleged circumstances, and
2) It does not deviate from the Biblical description if one is familiar with the culture and carefully parses what is actually said.
--- Jabba

1. Explain please, with details, citations and evidence.
2. Explain please, with details, citations and evidence.
Otherwise it's just another case of you credulously accepting anything to try and balance the mass of evidence of the shroud's fakery.

 

[catsmate]

- I believe that Rogers probably had the material from Gonella that he claimed to have. If you guys can accept that that is a reasonable position to take, I can move on to other issues...

No this is not a reasonable position to take. You, and the other shroudies, have failed to show that:

• Gonella retained material from the portion removed for radiocarbon analyses
• Rogers gained access to this material
• Rogers carried out a proper examination of the putative material

In fact the preponderance of evidence is that:

• The area sampled for radiocarbon analysis was not part of a patch
• That none of the removed material was retained
• That Rogers either lied about the alleged material or was deceived by others
• That Rogers "analysis" is utter nonsense.

 

[realpaladin]

Yeah, I am considering that possibility. But why would someone do that here? I cannot think of an easier place to troll than the JREF message board. We get genuine kooks every single day. When someone shows up pretending to have a kooky theory, it doesn't take any effort at all to find several JREFers who take the claim at face value.

Is our message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards?

I am not sure... the tenacity is what separates the trolls from the 'believers', I guess.

 

[catsmate]

I thought I had taken care of the Sudarium?

You obviously haven't been spending much time in the believer threads.......
Standard practice (just look at DOC et cetera) is, once a point has been debunked, to go quiet for a while and then repeat it as though the debunking never happened.

 

[catsmate]

Really!?

The researchers who claimed it was not a patch were Franco Testore, professor of Textile Technology at the Turin Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum, Lyon, France. They are two of the very few researchers who have seen both sides of the sampled area of the Shroud. Can you provide the qualifications of the people who a) have examine the area under a microscope and b) claim it was a patch?


Of course, your assertion brings us back to the miraculous-weaver theory. Someone rewove the cloth in such a perfect manner that high powered microscopes could not detect where the authentic area ended and the rewoven area began.

And used threads that so perfectly match the originals that no modern analysis technique, from optical microscopy to chemical analysis, from IR to X-ray spectroscopy, to tell the difference.

 

[catsmate]

So we're reading about a known forgery which is a proven money-spinner.

So Clement KNEW the TS was a "figure or representation," 5 months before the d'Arcis Memo.

Who is stupid enough to think Clement's Brief is anything but documented proof the TS was considered an artefact?
Even the Anti-Pope knew it.

Why bother, since Anti-Pope Clement VII's Brief already made it clear the TS was an artefact?

So we have a bone of contention over a money-spinner, known by Clement to be an artefact.
Just out of curiosity-How could Clement mention the Memo if he'd never received it, Jabba?
Money trumps, even in medieval times!
All we see is that a known artefact is allowed to spin money at the expense of the faithful.

Since it was a draft of a letter d'Arcis intended to send, it's clear why it doesn't show up in the Vatican records, don't you think?

What does this have to do with the forged artefact? Other than showing it was a money-spinner?

So.
The Shroud was well-known to be a forgery and a money-spinner to the point it was discussed in letters between Popes and the King of France.

Thanks for posting this, Jabba.
If there was any doubt the Shroud was known to be a forged artefact in medieval times, you've dissipated it with this information.

One point strikes me about the exchange of correspondence about the shroud. If it was a money spinner, why did Henri de Poitiers want it removed? Internal church politics perhaps? Or was be unusually pious by the standards of the day?

 

[realpaladin]

You obviously haven't been spending much time in the believer threads.......
Standard practice (just look at DOC et cetera) is, once a point has been debunked, to go quiet for a while and then repeat it as though the debunking never happened.

Ok... learned a lesson here. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[pakeha]

One point strikes me about the exchange of correspondence about the shroud. If it was a money spinner, why did Henri de Poitiers want it removed? Internal church politics perhaps? Or was be unusually pious by the standards of the day?

A good point!
Why jib at the TS, indeed?


I could speculate about that, but in the end I'd put my money on 'internal politics'.

It occurs to me the TS was so well-known to be a fraud that Henri de Poitiers balked at using it but hesitated to publicly blow the whistle in the same way a politico might hesitate to sign a demolition order for one of these:
http://nwcreation.net/museums.html

 

[pakeha]

Hmm.
More about that Bishop and his letter:

About 1900, a letter was found in a collection of documents owned by Ulysse Chevalier. The letter was written in 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, Bishop to the Anti-Pope of Avignon, Clement the VII. The letter explained that an investigation had exposed the artist who had painted the Shroud and he had confessed. Many were disturbed that the cloth was being used for financial gain. The letter further pointed out:

“For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real Shroud of our Lord, having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint; while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy evangelist would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.”

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/why-shroud-of-turin-is-forgery.html

From the same source

By 1389 Jeanne had remarried, and her husband Aymon of Geneva was the uncle of the anti-pope Clement VII, who reigned from 1378-1394 in Avignon during the Western schism. Jeanne and her son circumvented obtaining permission from the new Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, by appealing directly to the anti-pope’s legate, Cardinal Pierre de Thury.

The opening of the exhibition in April 1389 generated such a furor that the bishop had recourse to Clement VII. The anti-pope responded by confirming his permission and imposing silence on the bishop. Not satisfied, the bishop appealed to King Charles VI to revoke his permission for the exhibition, but to no avail. In exasperation, Bishop d’Arcis wrote his famous Memorandum to Clement VII.

So yes, internal politics.
And money, especially money.
Odd the brilliant legal mind that wrote that article Jabba quoted from the shroud site didn't realise that.

 

[Jabba]

Direction

- I don't know how you would do it exactly, but if you guys could, somehow, come up with a consensus on what specific sub-sub-etc-issue I should address, I would happily take your lead.

- At this point, I am trying to address the sub-issue of "Carbon Dating," the sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Article," the sub-sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Lying" and the sub-sub-sub-sub-issue of Gonella actually providing what Rogers claimed that he did. I might be missing a few "subs" in there.
- I'm addressing the issue of Rogers lying because you guys brought it up, and it seemed to be the main reason you discounted his article in Thermochimica Acta, which article is my most basic reason for believing that the piece being dated was not representative of the larger cloth.
-I'm sure that you have other reasons for discounting his paper, but if you told me what they are, I can't remember them. "Lying" seemed like a nice 'simple' claim to address -- and so far, as far as I can read my own mind, I doubt very seriously that Rogers was lying about that.
- So, unless you guys can come up with some sort of consensus about the sub... issue I should be addressing, or give me one of your other reasons for discounting Rogers' paper, I’ll make one last attempt to convince you that there is no significant reason for believing that Rogers was lying about Gonella giving him the alleged material.

- But then, I gotta say, I think you’re wrong about me being responsible for showing that Rogers wasn’t lying -- instead of you guys being responsible for showing that he was…

--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

- I don't know how you would do it exactly, but if you guys could, somehow, come up with a consensus on what specific sub-sub-etc-issue I should address, I would happily take your lead.

- At this point, I am trying to address the sub-issue of "Carbon Dating," the sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Article," the sub-sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Lying" and the sub-sub-sub-sub-issue of Gonella actually providing what Rogers claimed that he did. I might be missing a few "subs" in there.
- I'm addressing the issue of Rogers lying because you guys brought it up, and it seemed to be the main reason you discounted his article in Thermochimica Acta, which article is my most basic reason for believing that the piece being dated was not representative of the larger cloth.
-I'm sure that you have other reasons for discounting his paper, but if you told me what they are, I can't remember them. "Lying" seemed like a nice 'simple' claim to address -- and so far, as far as I can read my own mind, I doubt very seriously that Rogers was lying about that.
- So, unless you guys can come up with some sort of consensus about the sub... issue I should be addressing, or give me one of your other reasons for discounting Rogers' paper, I’ll make one last attempt to convince you that there is no significant reason for believing that Rogers was lying about Gonella giving him the alleged material.

- But then, I gotta say, I think you’re wrong about me being responsible for showing that Rogers wasn’t lying -- instead of you guys being responsible for showing that he was…

--- Jabba

Nope. See this (yet again, 21st time!) -

For what must be the 20th time - it does not matter whether Rogers was lying or not. The Vatican's own science advisor (as well as all 3 radiocarbon labs) have all produced a mountain of evidence to show that Rogers was definitely mistaken to think the C14 sample came from a patch - it definitely did not!

The only thing you need to do, and the only thing which is relevant here, is for you to (30th time of asking?) ...

... post a reference to any genuine scientific research publication from properly qualified independent scientists who say that the C14 was wrong.

 

[pakeha]

Jabba, I'll go for C14 dating, too.

Anyway, back to what I've found on the de Charny connection:

"hen Geoffrey II de Charny died on May 22, 1398, his daughter Margaret de Charny became the owner of the Shroud.... In 1418, a war broke out in the vicinity of the chapel, and the clergy asked Margaret’s second husband, Humbert de Villersexel, to protect it in his castle of Montfort near Montbard. Humbert acknowledged receiving the relic in a letter dated July 6, 1418. In it he wrote: During this period of war, and mindful of illdisposed persons, we have received from our kind chaplains, the dean and chapter of Our Lady of Lirey, the jewels and relics of the aforesaid church, namely the things which follow: first a cloth, on which is the figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in a casket emblazoned with the de Charny crest. . . . The aforesaid jewels and relics we have taken and received into our care from the said dean and chapter to be well and securely guarded in our castle at Montfort.

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/shroud_turin.htm

Since we're going to doccos from the time, it's interesting de Villersexel calls it "first a cloth, on which is the figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ" rather than the Shroud itself.

I've read little on this phase of history an was glad to have the change to read a bit.
From what I see, the TS is just another medieval relic.
By the way, a friend of mine pointed out we have no proof what's in Turin as actually the cloth that formed part of the legacy of the de Charny family, after all.

 

[Pixel42]

By the way, a friend of mine pointed out we have no proof what's in Turin as actually the cloth that formed part of the legacy of the de Charny family, after all.

AIUI this is the basis of the da Vinci theory: that he was asked to make a more convincing fake shroud after the original one failed to fool the good Bishop, and it is this replacement which was later displayed and has come down to us.

 

[pakeha]

^^^ A fake of a fake, then?
Perfect.

...
-I'm sure that you have other reasons for discounting his paper, but if you told me what they are, I can't remember them. "Lying" seemed like a nice 'simple' claim to address -- and so far, as far as I can read my own mind, I doubt very seriously that Rogers was lying about that.
- So, unless you guys can come up with some sort of consensus about the sub... issue I should be addressing, or give me one of your other reasons for discounting Rogers' paper, I’ll make one last attempt to convince you that there is no significant reason for believing that Rogers was lying about Gonella giving him the alleged material. ...

--- Jabba

OK.
I'll bite. When did you post up what convinced you Rogers was telling the truth?

In any case, I'm waiting patiently for your objections to the C14 dating.
How many posters have asked you for this?

 

[IanS]

Jabba, please address the following fact -

- it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed from the shroud for the first time in 500 years, the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and their own textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg examined the shroud in microscopic detail and stated that it was quite certain that there was definitely no patch or repair anywhere near the C14 sample site, and that Rogers was definitely wrong ever to suggest there was any such patch or repair.


Why do you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg have both repeatedly stated that fact?

Answer that please.

 

[catsmate]

- At this point, I am trying to address the sub-issue of "Carbon Dating," the sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Article," the sub-sub-sub-issue of "Rogers Lying" and the sub-sub-sub-sub-issue of Gonella actually providing what Rogers claimed that he did. I might be missing a few "subs" in there.

No. The issue is the lack of valid refutation of the radiocarbon dating. Rogers' paper is the best the shroudies can come up with and it simply isn't good enough. All the, what you call, "sub-sub" issues are part of that.
How about you find valid evidence? A proper chain of custody of part of the sample to Rogers, proper analysis, explanation of why no expert takes the patch theory nonsense seriously for a start.

I'm addressing the issue of Rogers lying because you guys brought it up, and it seemed to be the main reason you discounted his article in Thermochimica Acta, which article is my most basic reason for believing that the piece being dated was not representative of the larger cloth.

Actually Rogers lying is one element, a more significant one is that analyses of the cloth shows the whole "patch" business to be nonsense.

-I'm sure that you have other reasons for discounting his paper, but if you told me what they are, I can't remember them. "Lying" seemed like a nice 'simple' claim to address -- and so far, as far as I can read my own mind, I doubt very seriously that Rogers was lying about that.

Why not? His story is in conflict with facts, he was made aware of this and did nothing to establish the source of the threads he allegedly tested.
Personally, given his dishonesty over McCrons's analysis and the whole vanillin/lignin nonsense I'm quite happy to call him a liar.

- So, unless you guys can come up with some sort of consensus about the sub... issue I should be addressing, or give me one of your other reasons for discounting Rogers' paper, I’ll make one last attempt to convince you that there is no significant reason for believing that Rogers was lying about Gonella giving him the alleged material.

- But then, I gotta say, I think you’re wrong about me being responsible for showing that Rogers wasn’t lying -- instead of you guys being responsible for showing that he was…
--- Jabba

You are the one claiming that Rogers' "analysis" refutes the