Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[dafydd]

Skeptics say "I personally don't like this band.", rather than make objective statements.

But they are awful.

 

[dafydd]

Exactly. And when you want blood on your cloth, it needs to be fresh. The donor still needs to be alive. Dead bodies don't bleed. Why don't dead bodies bleed? Because the heart isn't pumping the blood through the veins. Not to mention that the blood in the body is probably clotting something fierce. So.. Blood on a shroud? Means nothing.

I've been waiting for Jabba to realize that dead bodies do not bleed.

 

[IanS]

dafydd,
- I'm the only one asking Pakeha questions -- whereas, I'm being asked questions by more than 50 persons, and answering as many as I can find time for -- and, I'd like her to answer.
--- Jabba

There is really only one question you have to answer, and it's been asked 50 times or more. It's simply this -

Q1. do you have any genuine research paper published by a real independent scientist who says the C14 is disputed? Yes or No?

It's that simple. You just need to answer that one single question. It’s just a simple Yes or No.


You linked before to an article by a shroud believer called Marinelli ... but you now know that she is not actually a proper independent scientist in any sense at all, and she was not publishing in a genuine research journal either.

There are also two subsidiary questions about the C14 & Rogers paper, which I've asked at least 30 times before and which you should ideally answer -

Q1a. can you explain why anyone would try to make an invisible repair on an insignificant corner of the shroud nowhere near the image?

Q1b. can you give any credible explanation why the Vatican's own science advisor and their own textile expert have both repeatedly stated, in public, that Rogers was definitely wrong, and that "there is definitely no repair"?

 

[catsmate]

- However, I disagree with you about the surety of the dating, believe that I have evidence in other areas that "outweighs" the dating, don't want to be restricted to just arguing against the dating and want to have my
chance (in my own "sub-thread") to direct the conversation.

Then stop wasting time and present your "evidence". And I hope it's better than the long debunked crap from Rogers, Benford and Marino that you keep dishonestly rehashing.

I'm trying to follow your lead re the carbon dating, but think that the blood issue and its implications, outweigh the carbon dating results re the date of the Shroud.

First show that there is blood trace on the shroud, something you, STURP and the other shroudies have singularly failed to do so far.

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

First show that there is blood trace on the shroud, something you, STURP and the other shroudies have singularly failed to do so far.

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...

The shroud has been reproduced several times, something you've been told about and even shown video of.

<snippage>

First show that there is blood trace on the shroud, something you, STURP and the other shroudies have singularly failed to do so far.

And that will help you to refute the results of the Carbon 14 testing here, will it?

I doubt it.

 

[dafydd]

Q1. do you have any genuine research paper published by a real independent scientist who says the C14 is disputed? Yes or No?

It's that simple. You just need to answer that one single question. It’s just a simple Yes or No.

If the answer is no, then thread over.

 

[Lucian]

I've been waiting for Jabba to realize that dead bodies do not bleed.

In addition, isn't the alleged blood on the head lying neatly on top of the hair in a rather improbable manner? That, at least, is how it appears in photographs.

 

[Dinwar]

I've been waiting for Jabba to realize that dead bodies do not bleed.

Not after 3 days, certainly. I mean, a bit of leakage is to be expected from the fresh wounds, from capillary action if nothing else, but after a while the wounds from the lashing would have sealed up.

 

[Dinwar]

In addition, isn't the alleged blood on the head lying neatly on top of the hair in a rather improbable manner? That, at least, is how it appears in photographs.

I can speak to that too! My sister's dagger and my forehead once made rather brief contact, resulting in a shallow stab wound just above the hair line. The blood flowed quite freely, dripping off my nose before I'd gone very far--and this was an extremely shallow stab wound (didn't hit bone, which is pretty shallow up there), as well as being extremely small (both my sister and I reacted by pretty much instantly pulling away from each other). I know that my blood was dripping because once my mom stopped laugh she complained about bloodstains on her new carpeting.

Head wounds--even extremly shallow ones--bleed like crazy, and if you spend three hours upright with head wounds like you would have on a cross your entire face is going to be covered in blood. It won't be a few speckles, and it certainly won't be restricted to the hair and forehead. His NECK woudl be bloody. His chest certainly would be.

Unless they washed him, in which case there'd be no blood at all, since he was dead.

Although come to think of it, an interesting possibility comes to mind: we're assuming that the guy was dead. What if he wasn't? What if he was taken down too early (3 hours is not a crucifixion--three DAYS, maybe, but not three hours), and he was still alive? They "prep the body" by putting some of that ocher on it, then wrap it up nice and neat, all the while Jeshua is playing dead. When he gets to the tomb he simply waits two days (they went to the tomb to clean the body, so he'd have food) and on Sunday morning he waltzes out the door. This would explain every single aspect of the shroud that Jabba is so concerned with, but it still wouldn't prove the divinity of Jeshua.

This is assuming, of course, that the C14 dating is flawed, which is by no means proven. I'm just saying that even if we ignore the dating, it's trivial to come up with an alternate explanation for the shroud that doesn't involve deities or even resurection.

 

[catsmate]

This is not science, and I'm not the one responsible for its non-scientific tone.

Utter rubbish. Science is about using logic and reason, collating facts and evidence. All you've done so far is spout unsupported opinions and evade questions.

If you really wanted to have effective debate, you'd make it friendly. If debate is ever to be effective, it just about has to be friendly.

No.

. What you're doing may not quite fit the definition of "argumentum ad hominem," but it's close, and it's present in almost every q/c I get.

No it doesn't. I suggest you try and understand what argumentum ad hominem actually means before using the term.

Whatever, go to that shroudie site and then come back and fuss at me about ignoring evidence over here. I dare you.

Why should anyone waste their time with your site?

I will do my best to get back to the evidence, but it's awfully hard to ignore all the claims and insults otherwise.

You've never produced any evidence. Stating the truth, that you intentionally evade true debate and avoid providing evidence for your claims is not insulting you; it's telling the truth about your habits of deceit.

Whatever, in order to get back to the evidence, I'll probably have to ignore everything that has occurred since my last post.

What evidence is that?

This is just plain weird. The blood is just blood--it's a pigment, all be it a macabre one. I cannot come up with a single way for pigment to over-ride the C14 dating, particularly since Jabba has thus far not succeeded in casting any doubt on the C14 results (despite his repeated insistance that he has). IF the cloth were dated to OLDER THAN the first century AD, yeah, I could see it--the date of the blood must necessarily be younger than the date of the cloth, by the principle of inclusion. But it's impossible for the blood to be older than the cloth.

Actually blood painting isn't that uncommon. See here, here, here and here.
Of course Jabba and his fellow shroudies haven't yet shown:

• that there is blood on the shroud
• that this proves something regarding the supposed authenticity of the cloth
• that this supposed blood somehow trumps the radiocarbon dating of the cloth

 

[pgwenthold]

Q1a. can you explain why anyone would try to make an invisible repair on an insignificant corner of the shroud nowhere near the image?

This is very funny.

Let's grant, for a moment, the existence of some invisible patch.

Exactly what is that all like? How big is it? What was it a patch for? Who did it? Why would anyone go through such trouble in the first place?

As my old adviser used to say, when you right that, maybe we should just put that in a separate file that we will call "Worm" because the can o'worms you just opened might not be something you want to be advertising.

 

[catsmate]

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/BrokenRecord.jpg​

Well said o mighty Pharaoh. Have a muffin......

Wait... why do you need a dead body? I'm pretty sure I can bleed on a sheet of cloth without dying. Hell, when I donate Blood, that's a LOT of blood. More than enough to dab a cloth. Doesn't prove anything.

Well a single unit of blood is 450ml; from what I remember of inkjet cartridges 35ml corresponds to ~1,000 pages at 5%. You could do a lot of printing from one body............

 

[IanS]

Dinwar,

- You mean, "Welcome to Internet debate." This is not science, and I'm not the one responsible for its non-scientific tone.

Oh, it IS science. We are specifically asking you about the C14 dating. And that most definitely is real science.

- If you really wanted to have effective debate, you'd make it friendly. If debate is ever to be effective, it just about has to be friendly. If debate is ever to be effective, the adversaries need to at least pretend that they respect each other. All these insults pretty much obviate effectiveness. What you're doing may not quite fit the definition of "argumentum ad hominem," but it's close, and it's present in almost every q/c I get.

The only reason it's become less "friendly" is that everyone here has become totally frustrated at your refusal ever to give a straight and honest answer to even the simplest straight and honest question!

- Whatever, go to that shroudie site and then come back and fuss at me about ignoring evidence over here. I dare you.
- I will do my best to get back to the evidence, but it's awfully hard to ignore all the claims and insults otherwise.

People here are not going to be fooled into wasting their time on barking mad religious websites. No more than genuine research journals ever waste their time publishing all the nutty propaganda articles that shroud fanatics like Ray Rogers, Sue Benford, Ms Marinelli, Barrie Schwortz etc. keep submitting to them in scores every year.

The reason nobody in their right mind does that sort of thing is because shroud websites, like creationist websites, and all the other various religious propaganda sites which fill the internet, are very clearly nothing more than fundamentalist religious sites attempting to promote and encourage religious/Christian belief ... they are not honest or genuine sites for education or information exchange in any sense at all ... instead they are the Christian equivalent of websites that insist alien abduction is true or that claim 9/11 was an inside job from the CIA and Mosad ... the people who contribute to those websites and write books about that, also claim to have masses of "evidence" ... though none of it ever stands up to scientific examination.

- Whatever, in order to get back to the evidence, I'll probably have to ignore everything that has occurred since my last post.

--- Jabba

Well you have already spent 30 pages attempting to ignore the fact there are no genuine scientific papers which have ever disputed the C14 ... you are apparently incapable of admitting that.

And it’s clear from your recent posts that instead of admitting that, you are now trying to sweep the C14 under the carpet and start discussing blood instead, as if that could ever hide the fact that the C14 clearly says the shroud dates from 1260 -1390AD, and there are actually no genuine scientists who disagree with those dates .

 

[Dinwar]

Let's grant, for a moment, the existence of some invisible patch.

The concept of an invisible patch has been addressed in this thread. There IS a technique for creating one; however, it's only invisible from one side of the cloth. Since experts biased in favor of the shroud's authenticity (ie, the Vatican's experts) freely admit that there's no evidence of an invisible patch on either side of the shroud, we can firmly conclude that there isn't one--after all, if there were any justification for concluding that there was one, the RCC would have jumped on it.

Utter rubbish. Science is about using logic and reason, collating facts and evidence. All you've done so far is spout unsupported opinions and evade questions.

This is a very common and very annoying delusion among woosters: that science is conducted in some perfectly cordial and dispasionate manner. It's not. I've heard of fist-fights among scientists. Some have used TNT to settle disputes. There are questions I don't dare ask a group of geologists, and questions that I only ask paleontologists if I'm drunk enough to find the shouting match funny.

Scientists ARE HUMANS. We're pasionate about what we do. Sometimes, that pasion spills over into our arguments. What separates us from most is that even when we're ready to punch someone, we will bow to data.

What you're doing may not quite fit the definition of "argumentum ad hominem," but it's close, and it's present in almost every q/c I get.

It's argument ad hominem to say "You're wrong and you're stupid". It is not, however, argument ad hominem to say "You're wrong because you're uninformed", as the latter clause is causally related to the former. I've given you exactly what it would take to prove me wrong: simply calculate out how much C14 it would take for a first-century cloth to produce a thirteenth-century C14 date. Until you do that, I can conclude that you are uninformed about C14 dating, and that this is causing your completely misrepresentation of what it is and does.

 

[pakeha]

catsmate1 wrote"...a single unit of blood is 450ml; from what I remember of inkjet cartridges 35ml corresponds to ~1,000 pages at 5%. You could do a lot of printing from one body............"


The words 'jet' and blood' remind me it's been ages seen I watched Kill Bill

In any case, as catesmate1 pointed out earlier, artists have been known to use blood in their work.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Museum-needs-200-000-for-Marc-Quinn-s-blood-portrait/16226

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0502/blood.htm

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/03/20/blood-urine-iron-man/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Blood-Paintings-Blood-Art/174598949231387


What 's the point of putting up links to blood-based art?
To show the possible, yet unproven presence of blood on the TS means nothing and does not in any way undermine the carbon 14 dating.
If I've understood properly, Jabba thinks the presence of blood on the TS is indicative of...something.
I can't fathom why that should be.

 

[IanS]

If the answer is no, then thread over.

Yep. And of course that why I keep asking him.

The answer of course is - " No, there is no such paper/scientist who disputes the C14 ".

Jabba knows that. He knew it 25 pages back. But he's refusing to make any clear admission of it.

 

[Belz...]

It's argument ad hominem to say "You're wrong and you're stupid".

Actually, no. It would be "you are wrong because you're stupid."

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, no. It would be "you are wrong because you're stupid."

Ah, yes, you are correct. What I described is actually a red herring.

It's not an ad hominem to say "You're wrong and you smell funny", but it is if you say "You're wrong because you smell funny", provided odor isn't a key component to your argument.

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba, why does the image creation have to take place before the blood placement. Couldn't the artist make a rough sketch of the cadaver's shape, sprinkle blood droplets of varying sizes, and THEN create the image?

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

Everyone else, did I miss the part where a reliable source confirmed that there was no image beneath the "blood" stains?

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

Lastly, as for respect. If someone comes here, presents ridiculous ideas¹, is carefully shown why the ideas are ridiculous, and clings to them even more tightly than before, then that person will be treated as a person who presents ridiculous ideas.


[1] Claiming that world renowned experts on ancient textiles were too incompetent to careful examine both sides of an artifact with magnifying glasses before selecting a location for C14 testing is beyond ridiculous.

 

[catsmate]

This is a very common and very annoying delusion among woosters: that science is conducted in some perfectly cordial and dispasionate manner. It's not. I've heard of fist-fights among scientists. Some have used TNT to settle disputes. There are questions I don't dare ask a group of geologists, and questions that I only ask paleontologists if I'm drunk enough to find the shouting match funny.

Scientists ARE HUMANS. We're pasionate about what we do. Sometimes, that pasion spills over into our arguments. What separates us from most is that even when we're ready to punch someone, we will bow to data.

Hell yes. Just remember the Bone Wars..........
I once played a wargame scenario involving Cope and Marsh.

 

[tsig]

Have you ever heard the expression "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic", Jabba?

Well you don't even have any deck chairs. And the ship has already sailed sunk.

ftfy