Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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

Anyone who picked 1, 5 or 6 can count themselves a winner. 7 or 8 gets you half a point.

 

[pakeha]

^^^


I'm going over IanS's excellent link http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf and can see why Jabba ignores it.

... X-ray fluorescence analysis on thirteen threads from the Raes sample indicated they had roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium and iron that was found on the rest of the Shroud.7 This is very significant because STURP attributed the relatively uniform concentrations of calcium, strontium, and iron that are found throughout the entire Shroud to the retting process in which the harvested flax plants acquire these elements from soaking for several days in nearby bodies of water. If the Raes threads have the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium, and iron as the rest of the entire Shroud, this not only indicates that the entire Shroud linen and the Raes sample were woven together, but that the flax of which they’re comprised could even have been retted very similarly or simultaneously.

I read this and think- why bother to lie about it?
Still I'm sure Jabba will have a explanation for this, preferably one not culled from an obituary.

 

[Ladewig]

- 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

Are sure you want to walk down that path? Because if you are then you have to provide evidence that Testore and Vial are grossly incompetent. Your theory hinges on their being idiots; please provide evidence of that assertion.

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.

 

[tsig]

^^^


I'm going over IanS's excellent link http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf and can see why Jabba ignores it.


I read this and think- why bother to lie about it?
Still I'm sure Jabba will have a explanation for this, preferably one not culled from an obituary.

Now you've introduced a sub sub sub sub sub head subject.I'll have to do some more research and get back to you.

Did you know that there have been sighting of the shroud thruout the centuries (cites irreverent data) and that some scientists with religious blinders claim the shroud is authentic, no painting, blood, contamination, waves arms frantically and flies off into the sunset.

-tsig

 

[pakeha]

All this talk of subs makes me hungry.

 

[Jabba]

Was Rogers lying about Gonella's help?

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

Paheka,
- I posted the following here.

.

...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...
... 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."

- Before that, in #640, I said the following:
- I wasn't trying to provide a reference showing that Gonella had actually done what Rogers claimed, and didn't figure that I needed to. After all, when Rogers' article was published, Gonella was still alive, and apparently never contradicted Rogers claim. So, if Rogers lied about Gonellas' help, they must have been in cahoots.
- Besides, as far as I can tell Rogers was a stand-up guy, had begun his research on the Shroud as a skeptic, and had accepted the carbon dating until a few years before his death.

- Otherwise, as you might guess, I've been reading mostly positive articles about Rogers', and his claims, in general -- and again, I don't remember these things very well, and didn't keep good, written, track of them -- which is why I'm happy to do more scouring for evidence...

--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

I'm glad you're cruising the web for evidence, jabba.
I have been too and am waiting for your findings.

Re-quoting an obituary doesn't cut it, Jabba.

Paheka,
- I posted the following here.
....- So, at least Wilson's description of events makes Rogers' claim about Gonella's help sound perfectly reasonable -- it seems to me."[/I]

Please, Jabba.
Please believe me when I say requoting obituaries isn't taking your argument forward.
You can't really be serious in implying Ian Wilson's obituary convinced you the C14 dating was problematic.

- Before that, in #640, I said the following:
- I wasn't trying to provide a reference showing that Gonella had actually done what Rogers claimed, and didn't figure that I needed to. After all, when Rogers' article was published, Gonella was still alive, and apparently never contradicted Rogers claim. So, if Rogers lied about Gonellas' help, they must have been in cahoots.

Your logic is astonishing.
Silence gives consent, eh?


Are you seriously telling us Gonella's silence convinced you of the truth of Roger's claims?
Awesome.

Otherwise, as you might guess, I've been reading mostly positive articles about Rogers', and his claims, in general -- and again, I don't remember these things very well, and didn't keep good, written, track of them -- which is why I'm happy to do more scouring for evidence.

Jabba.
Why do you only read articles which 'mostly' support Poger's views?
Haven't you read ANYTHING here?
Gone to any of the links posted up?

 

[Ladewig]

- Besides, as far as I can tell Rogers was a stand-up guy, had begun his research on the Shroud as a skeptic, and had accepted the carbon dating until a few years before his death./QUOTE]

Is this documented somewhere? The I-was-a-skeptic-until-I-looked-at-the-evidence routine has more false positives than true positives.

Don't do any research, Jabba. I was just wondering if you had actual documentation of the acceptance of the carbon dating at one time. I was looking for something stronger than so-and-so told so-and-so and he said that yadda, yadda. An actual published article perhaps. But don't spend time on it. Focus on the more important issues.

 

[catsmate]

...As he and Gonella subsequently insisted, Cardinal Ballestrero had given
them full permission to take such initiatives for the benefit of future Shroud research, <snip>

Evidence please.

- I wasn't trying to provide a reference showing that Gonella had actually done what Rogers claimed, and didn't figure that I needed to.

Oh yes you do.

- Besides, as far as I can tell Rogers was a stand-up guy, had begun his research on the Shroud as a skeptic, and had accepted the carbon dating until a few years before his death.

Right............. As far as I'm aware, and I did some research, Rogers had a history of publishing disreputable pro-authenticity rubbish in every possible venue; pro-authenticity and pseudoscientific journals, symposia, and websites, the sort of places you'd find astrology, UFOlogy and IDiocy nuts trying to push their beliefs.
Rogers' was a member of STURP and believed in the authenticity of the shroud since at least the mid-seventies; he supported and defended the rubbish that STURP tried to pass of as legitimate science.
So obviously you haven't bothered to check you facts. Again.

Frankly the issue with Rogers' "paper" in TA isn't the crappiness of the science in it but rather the failure of the peer review process that allowed such rubbish to be published.

Otherwise, as you might guess, I've been reading mostly positive articles about Rogers', and his claims, in general --

Perhaps you should read articles written by people who aren't believers desperately trying to support their belief? Say Clint Chapple or Malcolm Campbell for a start.

 

[Jabba]

Two different questions

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

Paheka,
- I posted the following here.
...As he and Gonella subsequently insisted, Cardinal Ballestrero had given
them full permission to take such initiatives for the benefit of future Shroud research...

...Please, Jabba.
Please believe me when I say requoting obituaries isn't taking your argument forward.
You can't really be serious in implying Ian Wilson's obituary convinced you the C14 dating was problematic...

Paheka,

- I’m going to try to take one baby step at a time.
- Note that the question I was answering was strictly about Rogers telling the truth – I had no intention of implying that such was what convinced me that the C14 dating was problematic. (I’m probably more “literal” than most people and tend to answer the exact question -- when others would respond to what the questioner was “getting at” instead. I think this does lead to misunderstandings.)

- Do you have any significant reservations or questions as to what I am saying so far?

… Jabba

 

[realpaladin]

Jabba,

why not outline, step-by-step, why you think the C14 is problematic?

Let's do it like this:

- You make a numbered list of arguments which are causally dependent on each other, like '1) X proved that Rogers had sample Y 2) Rogers' sample Y had such-and-so 3) therefore the C14 was invalid'.

Then you only react to, no sidesteps or further research, to each step in order.
So, even though it may be tempting... no reaction to 3) before 1) and 2) are done.

That way it does not become muddled so much.

Also, really try Evernote so you can keep track of it all.

 

[pakeha]

Paheka,

- I’m going to try to take one baby step at a time.
- Note that the question I was answering was strictly about Rogers telling the truth – I had no intention of implying that such was what convinced me that the C14 dating was problematic. (I’m probably more “literal” than most people and tend to answer the exact question -- when others would respond to what the questioner was “getting at” instead. I think this does lead to misunderstandings.)

- Do you have any significant reservations or questions as to what I am saying so far?

… Jabba

Of course, Jabba.
You're simply trying to avoid talking about the C14 dating of the TS.

No problem.
My questions and comments remain significant and basically the same in the case you choose to divert the discussion from the C14 dating of the TS to why you believe in Rogers' honesty.

So.
Are you telling us you were convinced by those obituaries of Rogers' honesty?

 

[tsig]

Of course, Jabba.
You're simply trying to avoid talking about the C14 dating of the TS.

No problem.
My questions and comments remain significant and basically the same in the case you choose to divert the discussion from the C14 dating of the TS to why you believe in Rogers' honesty.

So.
Are you telling us you were convinced by those obituaries of Rogers' honesty?

I see we're following a well worn path and starting to talk about the honesty of Rodgers instead of what he did.

Rodgers may be completely honest but he never did anything to dispute the C¹⁴ dates.


This is so familiar. Woos would always rather talk about the reliability of witnesses than the reality of what they've seen.


"Uncle Joe would never lie or prank so when he says he saw a ghost*, I believe him".


*UFO, bigfoot, Virgin Mary, god>>>.

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba,

why not outline, step-by-step, why you think the C14 is problematic?

Let's do it like this:

- You make a numbered list of arguments which are causally dependent on each other, like '1) X proved that Rogers had sample Y 2) Rogers' sample Y had such-and-so 3) therefore the C14 was invalid'.

Then you only react to, no sidesteps or further research, to each step in order.
So, even though it may be tempting... no reaction to 3) before 1) and 2) are done.

That way it does not become muddled so much.

Also, really try Evernote so you can keep track of it all.

I like it.

Also, it will provide an unambiguous definition of progress.

 

[Jabba]

My Current Plan

Jabba,

why not outline, step-by-step, why you think the C14 is problematic?

Let's do it like this:

- You make a numbered list of arguments which are causally dependent on each other, like '1) X proved that Rogers had sample Y 2) Rogers' sample Y had such-and-so 3) therefore the C14 was invalid'.

Then you only react to, no sidesteps or further research, to each step in order.
So, even though it may be tempting... no reaction to 3) before 1) and 2) are done.

That way it does not become muddled so much.

Also, really try Evernote so you can keep track of it all.

Paladin,
- I just downloaded Evernote and tried to register for a free account, but it told me that my server wasn't responding properly (or, something like that). I'll try again later...
- I'll need to do some thinking about your other suggestion.
- For the moment, I'll stick to my baby-step idea and try to answer Paheka's question.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

...So.
Are you telling us you were convinced by those obituaries of Rogers' honesty?

Paheka,
- No. Firstly, I'm not convinced of anything. I do 'lean' in certain directions -- some more than others -- and, I do lean considerably in the direction of Rogers' honesty about this issue.
- Let me know if you don't believe what I just said. Otherwise, I'll move on to my next disclaimer regarding your sentence above.
--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

Jabba - please stop ducking the issues and just answer the question I’ve asked you a dozen times now … here it is again -

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.

Stop ducking it. Just answer that please.

 

[pakeha]

Paladin,
- I just downloaded Evernote and tried to register for a free account, but it told me that my server wasn't responding properly (or, something like that). I'll try again later...
- I'll need to do some thinking about your other suggestion.
- For the moment, I'll stick to my baby-step idea and try to answer Paheka's question.
--- Jabba

So.
No discussion of the C14 dating of the TS?

Paheka,
- No. Firstly, I'm not convinced of anything. I do 'lean' in certain directions -- some more than others -- and, I do lean considerably in the direction of Rogers' honesty about this issue.
- Let me know if you don't believe what I just said. Otherwise, I'll move on to my next disclaimer regarding your sentence above.
--- Jabba

Is my belief that pivotal to the discussion?
But to answer, your 'leanings' about Rodgers' honesty would be fascinating if you cared to show us what ah 'leaned' you.
Apart from your reliance on what you read in obituaries, of course.

 

[Dinwar]

... X-ray fluorescence analysis on thirteen threads from the Raes sample indicated they had roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium and iron that was found on the rest of the Shroud.7 This is very significant because STURP attributed the relatively uniform concentrations of calcium, strontium, and iron that are found throughout the entire Shroud to the retting process in which the harvested flax plants acquire these elements from soaking for several days in nearby bodies of water. If the Raes threads have the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium, and iron as the rest of the entire Shroud, this not only indicates that the entire Shroud linen and the Raes sample were woven together, but that the flax of which they’re comprised could even have been retted very similarly or simultaneously.

This is ample evidence to convince me this is true. I've been involved in some similar research, only with fish otoliths rather than plant fibers, and the methodology is sound. Water trace chemistry is highly variable, and by "highly" I mean I could tell you which month a sample was taken given the combination of a few compounds. It's based on a huge number of factors, including the bedrock, fertilizers, any cities nearby, weather, etc. Many of these would have been more important prior to the Industrial Revolution, as human waste disposal was considerably less sophisticated (let's put it this way: Europeans actually experienced enough selection pressure that they and their decendants have a noteably higher ability to drink alcohol because beer was much, MUCH safer than water).

These are techniques that numerous nations use to solve multi-billion dollar questions in multiple industries. They're pretty well-established.

So really, the shroud believers have two options: either prove that this analysis is wrong in some way, or prove that for some reason the technique can't work properly with the shroud. Because if this stuff is true, the C14 dates are solid.

 

[jhunter1163]

Rogers' being honest about what he believed doesn't preclude his being wrong.

I was more or less on the fence about the Shroud before (probably 80 percent convinced that it was a forgery, but not being well-enough informed to totally exclude the possibility that it was of the proper age). After reading this thread, though, I would have to say that there is no compelling evidence that the Shroud is from the first century and very compelling evidence that it is a medieval hoax.

That's what intellectually honest people do; they revise their beliefs when new evidence comes in.