Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

- In regard to scientific issues not being legitimate targets for courtroom principles -- as claimed by Dinwar -- I simply disagree. What we have here is debate, and at least some courtroom c/p's (concepts and principles) (and, I suspect most, if not all) apply to the logic of all debate.
- It also happens that our debate involves historical evidence -- but even if it didn't, "reasonable doubt" is clearly applicable to debate about scientific issues. As mentioned above, reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, opens the door to the admissibility of historical, and other scientific, evidence...

- And, can any of you give me a citation from a recognized expert that claims that courtroom c/p's do not apply to debates about scientific issues?

--- Jabba

Three experts have testified that the shroud is a fake, all you've got is rumors, innuendos and a test done in a kitchen.

The verdict is "fake".

 

[Jabba]

- What I have wanted to do during our time together, is proceed from my primary claim -- that "The great preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud favors authenticity." to a summary of my broadest claims underlying my primary claim, to elaborations on one of those broadest claims, to evidence for those elaborations -- one elaboration at a time...

- Somewhere back in time, I posted the following elaboration:

We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud,)



1. A team of Italian scientists and clergy studied the Shroud in 1973. Part of their scientific findings was that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood.
2. That finding, however, was later challenged — and, that challenge was never answered.
3. Since that time, only one “involved” (having actually studied the Shroud itself, or sticky tapes taken from the Shroud) scientist (Walter McCrone), has agreed with the Italian finding.
4. That scientist’s discussions regarding the validity of that finding place his own credibility into doubt.
5. Since that time, that scientist has accrued several more strikes against his methods and objectivity.

6. The two involved scientists who have most studied the blood issue, have unequivocally concluded that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is in fact blood.
7. Numerous other involved scientists since that time have agreed.
8. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
9. The two main forensic pathologists (Frederick Zugibe and Robert Bucklin) that have studied the Shroud claim that the stains are real blood.
10. In recent years, The Skeptical Enquirer has paid two scientists to examine those tests and conclusions. For most of those tests, they were able to show how a chemical that could reasonably have been in the ‘blood stains’ could have produced false positive results for blood.
11. Though, for two of the tests, they had no explanation.
12. Numerous articles claiming blood have been peer-reviewed; only one of the articles claiming otherwise has been thusly reviewed.

More specifically:

13. Arterial blood can be distinguished from venous blood and according to STURP, these distinctions are evident on the Shroud, and exist in the right places.
14. The different examples of blood flow have appropriate shapes.
15. The scourge marks, photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.
16. There are over 100 scourge marks on the body, and apparently all of them show the synersis.
17. These scourge marks also show the unmistakable shape of the roman flagrum used in the first century.
18. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.
19. The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image.
20. There is a second image on the back of the cloth with no stain in-between, whereas the blood stains go through the cloth.
21. The characteristics of the fire and water damage support a blood interpretation, rather than a paint interpretation.
22. The very red (versus brown) ancient blood stains make sense.
23. Whereas the image is extremely superficial, the alleged blood stains penetrate through the cloth.
24. There are no brush strokes or directionality in the alleged blood stains.
25. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud
26. The iron oxide (appropriate for real blood) found on the Shroud is much too pure to be pigment from paint.

- We had begun addressing some of those elaborations before becoming moderated, but my memory being what it is, I won't try to refer back to those discussions. Instead, I'll sort of start from scratch with #19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.
- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations. The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Come, come, Jabba.

-...
- Personally, I perceive all sorts of reasonable doubt of the carbon dating validity; and, reasonable doubt matters in that, it should force us to include the other scientific and historical evidence for an earlier date when doing our math.
--- Jabba

Show your grounds for reasonable doubt, please.
EVERYTHING you've posted to date has been rebutted.
EVERYTHING.

...
- It also happens that our debate involves historical evidence -- but even if it didn't, "reasonable doubt" is clearly applicable to debate about scientific issues. As mentioned above, reasonable doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating, opens the door to the admissibility of historical, and other scientific, evidence...

Jabba.
Post up your historical evidence.
It's been explained to you already that ALL your objections to the carbon dating have been rebutted.
ALL of them.
Let's move forward.

... - I guess what I'll try to do now is ignore the unflattering rejoinders, and stick solely to the evidence. It won't be easy -- or, quick...

I applaud your decision.
Remember-
Offering excuses and delaying posting up sources isn't debate.
It's stone-walling.
Fillibustering.
It would NOT be accepted in a courtroom.
Ask your friend the judge.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba, so your method of supporting your position comprises repeating posts that are both unfounded and unsupported?

Even in court you would fail.

I notice, too, that you continue to ignore comments demonstrating why your "evidence" is flawed.

 

[Garrette]

- What I have wanted to do during our time together, is proceed from my primary claim -- that "The great preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud favors authenticity." to a summary of my broadest claims underlying my primary claim, to elaborations on one of those broadest claims, to evidence for those elaborations -- one elaboration at a time...

And this is completely backward and demonstrates that you have surrendered to your bias. (We all have biases; it is impossible not to have them. The key is to recognize that you have them, including some you don't realize, and conducting research in such a manner that the biases do not matter).

If you wished to be objective, you would look at the evidence first and see where it leads. You have chosen, instead, to do what so many do, and choose the conclusion you like and then search for evidence to support it.

Get out of that mindset or there is, again, no point in this.

 

[Akhenaten]

<words>

Instead, I'll sort of start from scratch with #19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.

What evidence supports this claim?

B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body.

What evidence supports this claim?

In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.

You're getting ahead of yourself. You haven't established the presence of these 'depicted wounds' yet.

- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations.

At least all of them.

The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

--- Jabba

Fortunately there's no rush, because you haven't established anything that you've presented as fact, there will be no stipulation and we are, as you've said yourself, starting from scratch.

 

[tsig]

What evidence supports this claim?





What evidence supports this claim?





You're getting ahead of yourself. You haven't established the presence of these 'depicted wounds' yet.





At least all of them.





Fortunately there's no rush, because you haven't established anything that you've presented as fact, there will be no stipulation and we are, as you've said yourself, starting from scratch.

I think we're being enshrouded in obfuscation.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe this shroud thingy operates like Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak, or the Elven cloaks of Lothlórien, only it works on evidence instead of people and Hobbits.

 

[MG1962]

8. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.


- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations. The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

--- Jabba

I would like to see more on this

 

[IanS]

- What I have wanted to do during our time together, is proceed from my primary claim -- that "The great preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud favors authenticity." to a summary of my broadest claims underlying my primary claim, to elaborations on one of those broadest claims, to evidence for those elaborations -- one elaboration at a time...

- Somewhere back in time, I posted the following elaboration:

We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud,)



1. A team of Italian scientists and clergy studied the Shroud in 1973. Part of their scientific findings was that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood.
2. That finding, however, was later challenged — and, that challenge was never answered.
3. Since that time, only one “involved” (having actually studied the Shroud itself, or sticky tapes taken from the Shroud) scientist (Walter McCrone), has agreed with the Italian finding.
4. That scientist’s discussions regarding the validity of that finding place his own credibility into doubt.
5. Since that time, that scientist has accrued several more strikes against his methods and objectivity.

6. The two involved scientists who have most studied the blood issue, have unequivocally concluded that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is in fact blood.
7. Numerous other involved scientists since that time have agreed.
8. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
9. The two main forensic pathologists (Frederick Zugibe and Robert Bucklin) that have studied the Shroud claim that the stains are real blood.
10. In recent years, The Skeptical Enquirer has paid two scientists to examine those tests and conclusions. For most of those tests, they were able to show how a chemical that could reasonably have been in the ‘blood stains’ could have produced false positive results for blood.
11. Though, for two of the tests, they had no explanation.
12. Numerous articles claiming blood have been peer-reviewed; only one of the articles claiming otherwise has been thusly reviewed.

More specifically:

13. Arterial blood can be distinguished from venous blood and according to STURP, these distinctions are evident on the Shroud, and exist in the right places.
14. The different examples of blood flow have appropriate shapes.
15. The scourge marks, photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.
16. There are over 100 scourge marks on the body, and apparently all of them show the synersis.
17. These scourge marks also show the unmistakable shape of the roman flagrum used in the first century.
18. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.
19. The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image.
20. There is a second image on the back of the cloth with no stain in-between, whereas the blood stains go through the cloth.
21. The characteristics of the fire and water damage support a blood interpretation, rather than a paint interpretation.
22. The very red (versus brown) ancient blood stains make sense.
23. Whereas the image is extremely superficial, the alleged blood stains penetrate through the cloth.
24. There are no brush strokes or directionality in the alleged blood stains.
25. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud
26. The iron oxide (appropriate for real blood) found on the Shroud is much too pure to be pigment from paint.

- We had begun addressing some of those elaborations before becoming moderated, but my memory being what it is, I won't try to refer back to those discussions. Instead, I'll sort of start from scratch with #19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.
- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations. The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

--- Jabba

This is all stuff you have posted before, isn't it.

It has already been explained at least 20 times why none of the above is actually genuine evidence at all. But I'll explain it again, very, VERY simply for you -

- what you are posting are claims that come entirely from religious shroud propaganda sites. That is not valid or independent evidence in any sense at all.

That's why the C14 was finally done by genuine scientists and properly published in a real science research journal.

If you are going to quote any scientific claims, then they MUST come from genuine independent scientists publishing in real research journals.

We have been through all of that with you over & over & OVER again, literally countless times now!

Only post references to real research papers from genuine independent scientists. Do you have any such papers?

 

[Dinwar]

- Personally, I perceive all sorts of reasonable doubt of the carbon dating validity; and, reasonable doubt matters in that, it should force us to include the other scientific and historical evidence for an earlier date when doing our math.

Except that you've demonstrated yourself to be unqualified in determining what doubt is reasonable, multiple times. You have an UNINFORMED opinion, which can be discarded.

Those who have INFORMED opinions, either on the sampling protocols or, like myself, on the methods used for radiocarbon dating, have universally agreed that the methods were valid. This includes those biased AGAINST a young age for the shroud.

- What I have wanted to do during our time together, is proceed from my primary claim -- that "The great preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud favors authenticity." to a summary of my broadest claims underlying my primary claim, to elaborations on one of those broadest claims, to evidence for those elaborations -- one elaboration at a time...

What you want is irrelevant. What you've DONE is best described as obfuscation, evasion, and attempting to control the conversation by forcing us to accept an inappropriate paradigm for the discussion.

- It also happens that our debate involves historical evidence -- but even if it didn't, "reasonable doubt" is clearly applicable to debate about scientific issues.

No, it's not. For two reasons. First, you don't honestly believe this. You're still trying to get us all to play "CSI:Jerusalem", and part of that is the criteria of forcing us to abandon a viable hypothesis merely because of some reasonable doubt which you've attempted to ram down our throats (the other evidence for this is your continued attempts to utilize legalese--poorly). Second, the mere presence of reasonable doubt is not sufficient grounds to reject a scientific hypothesis. There was reasonable doubt about the concept that a bolide killed the non-avian dinosaurs when the idea gained wide acceptance--it answered all of the data presented, better than any other alternative. All the doubt did was point us in the direction we needed to look. Wagner's hypothesis wasn't discarded because there was reasonable doubt, but because there was no mechanism (a similar flaw exists in your arguments, by the way). The concept of luminous aether wasn't abandoned because there was reasonable doubt about its existence, but because it was demonstrated by FACTS to be wrong.

This attempt to tell scientists what science is is the hallmark of a second-rate woo, and I have very little patience for this sort of tactic. If you're not a scientist you don't get to say what science is, does, or can or cannot do. It really is that simple.

 

[pakeha]

- ...

- Somewhere back in time, I posted the following elaboration:

We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud,)



1. A team of Italian scientists and clergy studied the Shroud in 1973. Part of their scientific findings was that what appeared to be blood on the Shroud was not blood.
2. That finding, however, was later challenged — and, that challenge was never answered.
3. Since that time, only one “involved” (having actually studied the Shroud itself, or sticky tapes taken from the Shroud) scientist (Walter McCrone), has agreed with the Italian finding.
4. That scientist’s discussions regarding the validity of that finding place his own credibility into doubt.
5. Since that time, that scientist has accrued several more strikes against his methods and objectivity.

6. The two involved scientists who have most studied the blood issue, have unequivocally concluded that what appears to be blood on the Shroud is in fact blood.
7. Numerous other involved scientists since that time have agreed.
8. The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
9. The two main forensic pathologists (Frederick Zugibe and Robert Bucklin) that have studied the Shroud claim that the stains are real blood.
10. In recent years, The Skeptical Enquirer has paid two scientists to examine those tests and conclusions. For most of those tests, they were able to show how a chemical that could reasonably have been in the ‘blood stains’ could have produced false positive results for blood.
11. Though, for two of the tests, they had no explanation.
12. Numerous articles claiming blood have been peer-reviewed; only one of the articles claiming otherwise has been thusly reviewed.

More specifically:

13. Arterial blood can be distinguished from venous blood and according to STURP, these distinctions are evident on the Shroud, and exist in the right places.
14. The different examples of blood flow have appropriate shapes.
15. The scourge marks, photographed, enlarged and studied under a microscope, show the slightly depressed centers, raised edges and serum characteristic of the “syneresis” occurring when blood clots form and then retract. This cannot be seen with the naked eye.
16. There are over 100 scourge marks on the body, and apparently all of them show the synersis.
17. These scourge marks also show the unmistakable shape of the roman flagrum used in the first century.
18. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.
19. The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image.
20. There is a second image on the back of the cloth with no stain in-between, whereas the blood stains go through the cloth.
21. The characteristics of the fire and water damage support a blood interpretation, rather than a paint interpretation.
22. The very red (versus brown) ancient blood stains make sense.
23. Whereas the image is extremely superficial, the alleged blood stains penetrate through the cloth.
24. There are no brush strokes or directionality in the alleged blood stains.
25. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a perfect match (except involving whole blood rather than blood exudate) with the face portion of the Shroud
26. The iron oxide (appropriate for real blood) found on the Shroud is much too pure to be pigment from paint.

- We had begun addressing some of those elaborations before becoming moderated, but my memory being what it is, I won't try to refer back to those discussions. Instead, I'll sort of start from scratch with #19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.
- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations. The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

Some general comments first.
Repeating a post with such a quantity of interlocking claims Seems to go against any sort of logic.
Jabba, you MUST know the reaction to this post will be precisely the same as when you posted it for the first time:
Where are the sources for the information that backs up your claims?
How is it possible you could have anticipated any other response?
What relevance does this have, anyway?
The TS is dated to the mid-fourteenth century.

- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations.

All of them, Jabba.
Of course.

The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.

Jabba, you already know a discussion of these claims doesn't work that way.
Instead, the faster you present your sources 'the faster we can move along.'

Now to #19
First of all, you must establish the red stains are blood.

#19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.

"The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."

We've gone over this at the other forum. I pointed you in the direction of lithographic techniques so you could see for yourself why this is a false premise.
However, I confused the technique.
I should have said woodcutting (xilography) technique.
I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcut
The work of Marc Escher is particularly of interest here.
Please keep in mind I am NOT claiming the TS was made using woodcutting, though I don't rule it out, either.

A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.

Please source this claim.
Again, you must establish it's blood.
And think through the implications of this claim, Jabba.
Because if that's true there is NO image under any of the 'blood' neither front nor back, it's is more or less 'evidence' the TS is a medieval artefact.

B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.

Please source this claim of the 150 different wounds, Jabba.
And again I refer you to woddcutting technique. It's really no mystery at all.
And in any case, Jabba, I'm well aware you're simply trying to side-step the dating issue.
Even if it's blood (and it may well be) the cloth is dated to the mid-fourteenth century.
It's very simple.
The Vatican accepts that dating, after all.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
- Somewhere back in time, I posted the following elaboration:

We know that the Shroud existed in 1357 – however, it contains numerous details (many of them recently and scientifically discovered) that a 1357 forger would not see, know of, be able to depict, or have reason to depict. (Many of these details would seem to PROVE that there is real BLOOD on the Shroud,)

This was untrue the previous times you claimed it and remains untrue now; the shroud contains no feature not capable of production with medieval knowledge. It has been reproduced multiple times using such technology.

<snippage of much long debunked nonsense>- Let me know which of my alleged facts in my reasons above need citations. The more of my alleged facts you can "stipulate" (already accept), the faster we can move along.
--- Jabba

All of them. You've provided no evidence, only claims.

 

[George 152]

Kid,
- Keep in mind that for most every response I give, I receive several rejoinders. Then, when I respond to just one of those rejoinders, I get several new rejoinders -- and , when I respond to one of those, I get several more, etc.
- I guess what I'll try to do now is ignore the unflattering rejoinders, and stick solely to the evidence. It won't be easy -- or, quick.
--- Jabba

Well at least for you sticking solely to the evidence will be a new experience...
enjoy

 

[Ladewig]

18. There are indications of still bleeding wounds and whole blood on the shroud.

Someone correct me if my logic is flawed.

1) Jesus was scourged on the way to the crucifixion.
2) Jesus was nailed to the cross.
3) Jesus died (and everyone involved agreed that He was dead before He was taken down).
4) The body was carried to the tomb.
5) The body was wrapped in the Shroud.

If those five events occurred in that order, then " indications of still bleeding wounds... on the shroud" is actually evidence that the Shroud is NOT the burial shroud of Jesus. Dead bodies do not still bleed from wounds.

 

[Ladewig]

What happened to the organized formal debate at the other site? Jabba, why are you back here?

 

[pakeha]

...If those five events occurred in that order, then " indications of still bleeding wounds... on the shroud" is actually evidence that the Shroud is NOT the burial shroud of Jesus. Dead bodies do not still bleed from wounds.

Not to mention the body was prepared for burial- that is, washed.

 

[Stray Cat]

You're still trying to get us all to play "CSI:Jerusalem",

Woz bored.

 

[catsmate]

Not to mention the body was prepared for burial- that is, washed.

Or that the image on the shroud doesn't correspond to being wrapped around a body, or with Jewish burial practices or the biblical description......

 

[Garrette]

Or that the image on the shroud doesn't correspond to being wrapped around a body, or with Jewish burial practices or the biblical description......

This part never ceases to befuddle me; it's not just with the Shroud of Turin but with apologetics for the differing resurrection stories and the differing birth stories, and on and on.

What people like Jabba are saying is that for the bible to be true the bible has to be wrong.