Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Garrette]

Still on the 3 labs versus 7:

Jabba, you have no justification for saying that 3 labs were insufficient except that 7 were initially planned. If it were different, if instead they had planned on 10 labs but changed it to 7, you would still be complaining.

Moreover, you don't give the impression that you would hold this reasonable doubt if the outcome had been different. If the 3 labs had dated the shroud as around 2000 years old, would you be creating web sites devoted to explaining how the results could not be trusted?

I have reasonable doubt about that.

 

[catsmate]

What logic? It's a matter of simple observation. The item that shroudies are describing as the shroud in the codex isn't the shroud at all.

How much more simple does an explanation need to be for you to be able to follow it?





Because the picture clearly shows the shroud lying on top of the rectangular thing.

You should stop trying to distract the discussion away from the C14 dating. It's clumsy and embarrassing.

He could be attempting to divert attention from his failure to show there is blood on the shroud.

Ladewig,
- I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean that I give your opinions no respect (from some of your previous posts, I assume that is what you mean here)?
- But to me,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant. seems quite respectful. You guys have made me wonder about the need for seven labs, but you haven't convinced me that the decrease from seven to three is completely irrelevant -- especially, since by doing so the church 1) excluded the second method of carbon dating, as well as Gove's laboratory, and 2) received a lot of "grief" from the scientists.
- The reduction may, indeed, be basically irrelevant, but to conclude that it is completely irrelevant just doesn't seem justified to me.

Why? Why is the reduction in testing labs so important?
You ignore the results from three, I'm sure you'd ignore the results from seven just as easily.

 

[Akhenaten]

He could be attempting to divert attention from his failure to show there is blood on the shroud.

So much to do, so little time point to any of it.

I mean, why the hell bother? Surely the most that people like Jabba could ever hope to establish is that this piece of cloth once had a dead dude wrapped in it. How does that do anything at all to establish the truth of any of the rest of the silly story?

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
- I'm not sure what you mean.

What do you mean "what do you mean?"?

 

[IanS]

And there we have it. Jabba will discuss the tangents so long as they remain non-threatening, but will not respond to specific comments about his own links in reference to the C14 dating.

Transparent. And if he has any sense of shame, shameful.

We are now on the 37th page of Jabba doing that.

All he is being asked to do is to say whether he has any genuine scientific paper disputing the C14, or not.

It's a simple Yes or No question - either does know of such a paper, or else he does not.

But apparently it's a question so immensely difficult that Jabba can never respond to it any straightforward clear way.

 

[catsmate]

We are now on the 37th page of Jabba doing that.

All he is being asked to do is to say whether he has any genuine scientific paper disputing the C14, or not.

It's a simple Yes or No question - either does know of such a paper, or else he does not.

But apparently it's a question so immensely difficult that Jabba can never respond to it any straightforward clear way.

The only paper published after peer review doubting the radiocarbon dating is Rogers' one. That has been dealt with exhaustively and is rubbish.

 

[dafydd]

The only paper published after peer review doubting the radiocarbon dating is Rogers' one. That has been dealt with exhaustively and is rubbish.

I'll bet that this Rodgers is a god botherer.

 

[tsig]

So much to do, so little time point to any of it.

I mean, why the hell bother? Surely the most that people like Jabba could ever hope to establish is that this piece of cloth once had a dead dude wrapped in it. How does that do anything at all to establish the truth of any of the rest of the silly story?

Because their faith is so weak that unless they can see the blood and touch the wounds on the shroud they cannot believe.

 

[Akhenaten]

Because their faith is so weak that unless they can see the blood and touch the wounds on the shroud they cannot believe.

That's really about the size of it, isn't it?

It's quite ghoulish.

 

[Craig B]

That's really about the size of it, isn't it?

It's quite ghoulish.

"See the blood". They seem to need to. Even more blood-worship may be found in Naples. From "portanapoli"

Yearly on the first weekend of May (on Saturday) and on the 19th September amazement spreads through Naples Cathedral. There one can marvel at how the blood of the beheaded San Gennaro liquifies in its ampoule.

I wonder when the Church is going to make a sample of the holy gore of San Gennaro available for scientific study.

 

[Dinwar]

Ladewig,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant.

It's simple. If you can't demonstrate that those three labs ARE WRONG, we're done here. You have nothing supporting your idea that the C14 dating is wrong. All you have is a reduction in the number of labs BY THE CLIENT, and the unsupported insinuation (you've yet to be honest enough to openly state it) that the reduction in the number of labs somehow equals fraud.

It doesn't, and the client is allowed to do whatever they want with the relic. They own it, after all.

And if those labs aren't wrong, then they're RIGHT, and the shroud is nothing more--and nothing less--than a 14th century fraud.

It's even worse than that, though--your main point remains, after 37 pages, completely unsubstantiated. You said, repeatedly, that the preponderance of evidence supports authenticity, yet all we have at this point is vague insinuations, pointless quibbling over protocol, discredited arguments that amount to nothing more than sour grapes rather than scientific arguments, and three labs' worth of data. If you're not clear on what "preponderance of the evidence" means, it means the majority of the evidence supports the conclusion. It does NOT mean that the alternate hypothesis isn't well supported--after all, even if the C14 dating is thrown out you still can't prove the age of the shroud beyond its first appearance in recorded history. That still doesn't support the idea that the shroud is in any way authentic, since the first record of the shroud (THIS shroud, not A shroud, and I've already pointed out where the shroud of Turin deviates from the Biblical description) is actually a corroboration of the C14 dating.

Your task, therefore, is simple: Either prove that the labs got the dates wrong AND provide your data confirming that the shroud dates from the first century, or admit that you've lost this round. If you're missing either of those two components, you haven't substantiated your argument and at this point it should be abandoned. Well, to be honest it should have been abandoned long ago, but at this point there's no rational justification for continuing to argue in its favor without those two components.

 

[Giordano]

He may not be a troll, but he is indistinguishable from one.

^^^^This!

 

[SezMe]

Well said, Dinwar.

 

[pakeha]

^
seconded

What an interesting turn the thread has taken.
At Jabba's protests he needs to centre the discussion to one thing: carbon 14 dating.
He then opens a separate thread, to discuss the 'blood'.

Mods merge the threads, as could have been forseen.
More protests from Jabba and request we clearly label our posts 'blood' or 'dating'.
And now he has introduced the Pray Codex into the mix.

The Pray Codex?
It's been discussed at length here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=6607537&highlight=Pray+Codex#post6607537

and here
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=7863888&highlight=Pray+Codex#post7863888


But back to Jabba's objections to the dating-
It's been pointed out the objection of changing the number of labs from 7 to 3 is a blind alley, he seems to have accepted that at last.
What was the next objection to the dating on his list?

 

[pakeha]

Here's a post from those prior discussions about the Pray Codex:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6648723&postcount=666

...
To clarify, on that manuscript page there are TWO NARRATIVE moments, one of the top half, one on the bottom. The herringbone-patterned object in the manuscript illumination is not a damned shroud, but is the lid of the sepulcher, and pictured as occurring several days after the scene on the top half of the image. The author of the Shroudstory website does not know a good god damned about medieval iconography.

It's from this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3960499#post3960499

And yet another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21358&highlight=Pray+Codex

 

[IanS]

The only paper published after peer review doubting the radiocarbon dating is Rogers' one. That has been dealt with exhaustively and is rubbish.

Afaik, that is indeed the only paper. Though Rogers of course was not an independent investigator (he was a lifelong member of STURP and constantly involved in pro-shroud support, he even wrote a pro-shroud book about it).

He was also not a practicing scientist at the time of submitting that paper. And his tests were merely to look through a microscope in his home, and to do the most basic of test-tube colour reactions in his own home ... that is not serious scientific research, and certainly not comparable with univ. research labs conducting radiocarbon dating.

But I’m not discounting the possibility that Jabba may have some more genuine papers. He might have. There might be some such papers that I’m unaware of …

… trouble is, Jabba has been asked repeatedly to post any such papers, but cannot even reply properly to the question, far less make any clear admission that there are no such papers.

 

[catsmate]

I'll bet that this Rodgers is a god botherer.

Oh yes. Ray Rogers is a long term shroudie and member of STURP.

Because their faith is so weak that unless they can see the blood and touch the wounds on the shroud they cannot believe.

Exactly.

It's simple. If you can't demonstrate that those three labs ARE WRONG, we're done here. You have nothing supporting your idea that the C14 dating is wrong. All you have is a reduction in the number of labs BY THE CLIENT, and the unsupported insinuation (you've yet to be honest enough to openly state it) that the reduction in the number of labs somehow equals fraud.

It doesn't, and the client is allowed to do whatever they want with the relic. They own it, after all.

And if those labs aren't wrong, then they're RIGHT, and the shroud is nothing more--and nothing less--than a 14th century fraud.

It's even worse than that, though--your main point remains, after 37 pages, completely unsubstantiated. You said, repeatedly, that the preponderance of evidence supports authenticity, yet all we have at this point is vague insinuations, pointless quibbling over protocol, discredited arguments that amount to nothing more than sour grapes rather than scientific arguments, and three labs' worth of data. If you're not clear on what "preponderance of the evidence" means, it means the majority of the evidence supports the conclusion. It does NOT mean that the alternate hypothesis isn't well supported--after all, even if the C14 dating is thrown out you still can't prove the age of the shroud beyond its first appearance in recorded history. That still doesn't support the idea that the shroud is in any way authentic, since the first record of the shroud (THIS shroud, not A shroud, and I've already pointed out where the shroud of Turin deviates from the Biblical description) is actually a corroboration of the C14 dating.

Your task, therefore, is simple: Either prove that the labs got the dates wrong AND provide your data confirming that the shroud dates from the first century, or admit that you've lost this round. If you're missing either of those two components, you haven't substantiated your argument and at this point it should be abandoned. Well, to be honest it should have been abandoned long ago, but at this point there's no rational justification for continuing to argue in its favor without those two components.

Well said.

 

[pakeha]

Hmm.
I wonder who the bright idea of associating the Pray Codex with the TS in the first place.
It's such an obvious non-starter you have to wonder whether the idea was to pull a joke on the Shroudies.

edited to add.
It seems even Shroudies know the Pray Codex has nothing to do with the TS:
http://sindone.weebly.com/pray.html

Who fed Jabba the information about the Pray Codex?
Probably some fanatical supporters of the TS's authenticity.
Jabba, beware!
If these friends of yours offer your an amazing financial deal or property for sale, don't go along with it.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

We are now on the 37th page of Jabba doing that.

All he is being asked to do is to say whether he has any genuine scientific paper disputing the C14, or not.

It's a simple Yes or No question - either does know of such a paper, or else he does not.

But apparently it's a question so immensely difficult that Jabba can never respond to it any straightforward clear way.

Ian,

- It isn't easy...

- I had thought that there were various peer-reviewed, scientific papers (besides the one by Rogers) disputing the carbon dating -- but so far, I have found only one more: http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
- One problem in identifying such papers is that "peer-reviewed" seems to be a somewhat ambiguous term...

- There are, however, all sorts of other, apparently well-researched papers, some written by official "scientists," some not, disputing the carbon dating. I had already supplied you with the latest (that I know of) back on 5/15, post #1223 -- http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud
Here are a few more:
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf,
- http://shroud.com/vanhels3.htm,
- http://shroud.com/c14debat.htm (actually, an on-line debate)
- http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf

- Clearly, these are all written by people who favor Shroud authenticity, but that's only natural... If you've done the research, and actually come up with the results that these people have claimed to come up with, you're going to favor authenticity.
- You can, of course, find all the carbon-dating disputation papers you want by going to the "flagship" of Shroud websites at http://shroud.com/, and looking under http://shroud.com/papers.htm, and http://shroud.com/library.htm#papers.

- But, isn’t it your turn now to provide me with “scientific” papers supportive of the carbon dating results?

- I think I’ll return to “signing” my posts. I prefer to do that, because it seems to encourage you guys to address me by “nickname,” which is helpful towards having actually FRIENDLY debate, which is helpful towards actually “getting somewhere” in debate.
- By saying this, however, I probably discourage you from addressing me that way -- but I did want to provide my reasoning...

--- Jabba

 

[Belz...]

- I guess that you guys don't see reasonable doubt here?
--- Jabba

"My religious beliefs demand that I doubt the results of the tests." is not reasonable.