Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wardenclyffe]

If anyone posts anything interesting over there that has not been discussed to death here already, please let us know. Before suggesting we go there, though, please consult the fable of the boy who cried wolf.

Thank you,
Ward

 

[Olowkow]

This is where they went.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

If I recall correctly, in the moderated portion I said that it was just more of the same old nonsense. I read most of what was there. The OP seems to have a compulsion for creating lists, and this is really the point, rather than anything having to do with the shroud.

I have not been there recently though.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I've visited a few times, but it seems to be mostly the OP and some regulars from here. Unless the OP, who apparently has lots of friends who are interested in the Shroud, can get more people to post, the debate there will be identical to the debate here.

Ward

 

[Ladewig]

I've visited a few times, but it seems to be mostly the OP and some regulars from here. Unless the OP, who apparently has lots of friends who are interested in the Shroud, can get more people to post, the debate there will be identical to the debate here.

Ward

It is just as wacky there as it was here.

When asked why the labs signed off on the results if they weren't confident of the procedures and results, Jabba responded:

- I don't know what kind of pressure was put on the included scientists and labs, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they had serious reason for not expressing their irritations with the Church in the official documents…​

 

[pakeha]

post deleted

 

[Dinwar]

- I don't know what kind of pressure was put on the included scientists and labs, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they had serious reason for not expressing their irritations with the Church in the official documents…

That's a pretty extreme comment. Professional integrity is pretty much critical to any scientist, and bowing to pressure like that would be enough to guarantee you never got a job again.

Moreover, it's mere speculation--and worse, drawing a conclusion from mere speculation that flies in the face of actual data. Conspiracy theory thinking at its worst.

 

[Ladewig]

That's a pretty extreme comment. Professional integrity is pretty much critical to any scientist, and bowing to pressure like that would be enough to guarantee you never got a job again.

Moreover, it's mere speculation--and worse, drawing a conclusion from mere speculation that flies in the face of actual data. Conspiracy theory thinking at its worst.

It is even worse than that. What motivation could the Catholic Church possibly have for pressuring labs into not criticizing the Church in the report that states that the Church's relic is a forgery?

And. Even if the Church were schitzo enough to want to do that, what leverage would the Catholic Church have over world-renowned testing labs?

 

[Craig B]

It is even worse than that. What motivation could the Catholic Church possibly have for pressuring labs into not criticizing the Church in the report that states that the Church's relic is a forgery?

And. Even if the Church were schitzo enough to want to do that, what leverage would the Catholic Church have over world-renowned testing labs?

Is it being suggested that the church would like to treat the scientists as it treated Galileo or Bruno - "relax" them to the secular arm, and have them imprisoned or burnt at the stake? Maybe Ratzinger would like to do that, but he is under strong constraint which inhibits any such actions.

 

[Dinwar]

Considering how little political pull the Vatican has this day and age, I doubt many scientists would be worried about being roasted for showing the results of their work. Besides, in order to suppress the results they'd have to have violated the blinds in their protocol--the guys who did the analysis didn't know what results were what, and can still publish their data, or use it to charge those suppressing it with fraud. Considering the battering the Church has undergone recently, I doubt they could stop such charges.

 

[pakeha]

It is even worse than that. What motivation could the Catholic Church possibly have for pressuring labs into not criticizing the Church in the report that states that the Church's relic is a forgery?

And. Even if the Church were schitzo enough to want to do that, what leverage would the Catholic Church have over world-renowned testing labs?

Good questions, Ladewig.
One can only assume it has something to do with those Poussin paintings being discussed in CT.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235280

 

[Ladewig]

Good questions, Ladewig.
One can only assume it has something to do with those Poussin paintings being discussed in CT.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235280

Maybe it is a new Anti-pope. Sure they haven't had much traction in the past 500 years, but they are going for the long con.

 

[pakeha]

^
Interesting idea!
After all, the TS was a toy in the pope/anti-pope game when it first appeared, wasn't it?

 

[Ladewig]

^
Interesting idea!
After all, the TS was a toy in the pope/anti-pope game when it first appeared, wasn't it?

That's it! I was looking for a good dramatic hook for a Shroud movie. Popes and antipopes. Genius!

Someone get me Ron Howard on the phone.

 

[Kid Eager]

if a pope and antipope collide, what particles are produced - religions or antireligions?

 

[catsmate]

Good questions, Ladewig.
One can only assume it has something to do with those Poussin paintings being discussed in CT.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235280

Of course. Leonardo da Vinci, Nautonnier [Grand Master] of the Prieuré de Sion faked the shroud using a pinhole camera; however this diverted his attention and allowed the priory's enemies to scupper his plans for the Florentine da Vinci-Machiavelli canal. Simple really.

Seriously the accusation that the Vatican pressurised scientists to fake the dating of the shroud is (in addition to slanderous) just plain stupid and effectively impossible; too many people were involved.

 

[Andy_Ross]

if a pope and antipope collide, what particles are produced - religions or antireligions?

They cancel out and yuou get an Atheist

 

[Jabba]

Lab dissatisfaction with procedures

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.
--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.--- Jabba

They are simply entirely unsupported and far from the most likely scenario.

 

[Dinwar]

#5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...

#5 is an accusation of fraud. Such accusations in the absence of proof are called libel or slander, depending on how you go about making them.

As for #4, why would any of these labs "...want desparately to be involved"? Dating labs have MONTHS of back-log. I once asked if a thermolumenesence sample could be "rushed" for a higher price (something labs frequently do) and got laughed at. I mean, literally laughed at--the person's coworker apparently came in from across the hall to see what was so funny. Right now, in at least some dating techniques it's a seller's market, and they're turning down customers. Why would they be desparate to get involved with something that's so obviously going to have such major political backlash? Why not stick to dating less politicized archaeological artifacts? It makes no sense when you look at it with any knowledge of the system involved!

It also, by the way, isn't a complete thought.

#1 assumes that the Church is hopelessly stupid and didn't believe what you believe. After all, why worry about dating something you know full well to be ancient? I don't worry about people dating my fossils--my dates are well-constrained, and if I'm wrong that has some really, really cool implications. Similarly, if the Church knew the shroud to be Jesus' burrial cloth they'd have jumped on the chance to have it dated--it'd prove that at least there was some guy they could base their faith on! Instead, you posit a bunch of scared little rodents cowering at the thought that one of their relics may be wrong. Again, it makes no sense.

#2 is an attempt to re-brand standard archaeological practice as a negative. You NEVER want to destroy much of the artifact--you ALWAYS want to preserve as much as possible for the future researchers to look at.

#3 is mere speculation on the Church's motives, something you've yet to provide any evidence for.

- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.

Not stupid, just hopelessly biased, slanderous, and devoid of any supporting information or knowledge of the systems in question.

 

[Ladewig]

- I'm not suggesting that the Church pressured the scientists into faking the date. I'm suggesting that 1) the Church wasn't all that anxious to have the Shroud dated, 2) they certainly didn't want much more of the Shroud to be sacrificed. 3) This attitude caused the Church to reject the protocols -- and 4) the labs -- wanting desperately to be involved -- 5) to agree not to put their objections to the Church's decision in the official documents.
- I suspect that 1-4 were all true. #5 isn't quite as obvious to me -- but that's mostly because of the implied requirement made by the church that the labs not express their dissatisfaction in the official documents...
- Obviously, I could be wrong, but neither I nor my suggestions are stupid.
--- Jabba

Perhaps, but your reasoning shows a profound ignorance about how scientific laboratories work and how the RCC works.¹
The fact that we are even talking about the size of the C14 sample is absurd. We are arguing over motes when there are logs in front of us. There is absolutely no way to go from the-sample-was-smaller-than-originally-planned to this-is-likely-the-burial-shroud-of-Jesus.

.............................

[1] before I get reported for a rule violation, I want to point out that I am criticizing the reasoning and not criticizing the person.