Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Ladewig]

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

Hey! Thanks for establishing the standard to be used when evaluating scientific analysis for this thread. If someone makes a claim that is later proved wrong, then all his or her testimony is stricken from the record. All we have to do is find a single mistake by Ray Rogers and we can throw away all of his claims. Awesome.

Mr. Jabba, with this standard in place, your argument is going to fall like a house of cards.

 

[dafydd]

Me:
- "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.

Gao:
Please explain how this is even remotely useful for dating.

Me:
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?




Gao,

Re #1: I think you're right. The body didn't have to be dead. And worse, based merely upon my claims (A & B) above, the "body" didn't even have to be that of a past or present living creature -- it could have been a statue or something.

Mostly, from just A&B above, I'm forced to think that the image and apparent bloodstains are not painted on. They are, somehow, some sort of imprint. Painting -- with the above results -- should have been extremely difficult, and seemingly unnecessary (Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

I would need to include more premises (and evidence supporting all premises involved) in order to conclude that the "body" was that of a once living, creature... I'll sure try to get around to doing that, but first I need to address your second question.

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

Jabba

Don't bother. We know it's a fake.

 

[catsmate]

<snippage>Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

More of the same self-serving nonsense. You have failed to show that:

• the shroud image couldn't have been painted
• the shroud image wasn't painted on
• that there is any blood residue on the shroud

Yet despite this, you feel able to dismiss the inconvenient evidence of the reproducibility of the shroud and of the contemporary investigation of it's origin.

I note that despite using your usual weasel words ("there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway") you fail to show your alleged evidence. Again.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

For what I believe is the eleventh time, you have shown no evidence of blood residue on the shroud. Yet despite this you dismiss the expert, detailed and lengthy analysis by McCrone. While you and your fellow shroudies have nothing to show that their is blood trace.
Hell, even most of STURP don't believe there is blood on the cloth. That's despite the outright lies that group has come out with.........

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

How about you stop wasting time on puerile methodological and proceedural nonsense and get on with showing the evidence you've been claiming to have for so long?


Now, I'm going to repeat myself as Jabba ignored me the last time I posted these inconvenient facts.

Here is a summary of McCrone's examination; there are more details in his book Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud (well worth reading; detailed and thorough). In brief: artist's pigments were found on the cloth, blood residue was not. Page 166 of that book covers the mistakes of Schwalbe, Roger, Heller and Adler in detail showing why their claims of blood are (to use McCrone's words) "incomprehensible nonsense". Specifically the Becke line test for refractive index.

His (peer reviewed) article 'The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?' (note: large PDF), was published in Accounts of Chemical Research in 1990.
He also published four other peer-reviewed papers on his examinations of the shroud in various journals; they are uniformly dismissive of it's authenticity. That's more than the shroudies have managed, even using their dubious tactics.

McCrone also carried out one of the first attempts to recreate the shroud using techniques of ~1350. Which Jabba repeatedly denies ever happened.

“By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged blood areas of the Shroud of Turin.” (John Heller and Alan Adler, 1980, p. 2742)

Reality: Untrue. Even Heller and Adler accept that their test in this paper was inconclusive, since all they did was prove the presence of a porphyrin, of which there are many in nature, including plants. In a second paper, they were deceived by false positive reactions to the presence of iron and protein in the alleged blood pigment and binder. Walter McCrone’s specific tests for blood were all negative, as were the tests of earlier unbiased Italian investigators. All these facts have been repeatedly pointed out to shroudies and are usually ignored or handwaved.

"The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.” (STURP Summary)

Reality. Not even remotely true. There is no hemoglobin, serum albumin, or blood of any kind on the Shroud. The supposed blood is composed mainly of vermilion and red ochre pigments. The proteins and albumin detected by STURP are from boiled parchment and possibly egg used as binder in the tempera pigment.

"It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood." (STURP Summary)

Reality: The Shroud was either painted or, more likely, was once in direct contact with a bas-relief sculpture, carving, or cast. The image is too undistorted to be the result of any natural means of image transfer from a human body. The "blood" was artistically applied after the image was laid down on the linen cloth.

"There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery." (STURP Summary)

Reality: Blatant lies. Even before the STURP report was published McCrone and others had duplicated it. Skeptics have demonstrated that the Shroud could easily have been created by an artist using materials and techniques available in early fourteenth century France several times since then.

Summary: Perhaps a change of colour will help?
All competent, properly-conducted microanalytical tests for blood or hemoglobin on the Shroud have been negative.

No amount of handwaving on the part of Jabba or the other shroudies changes this.


[Again many thanks to Steven Schafersman for his excellent work in collecting and collating information on the shroud.]

 

[catsmate]

Hey! Thanks for establishing the standard to be used when evaluating scientific analysis for this thread. If someone makes a claim that is later proved wrong, then all his or her testimony is stricken from the record. All we have to do is find a single mistake by Ray Rogers and we can throw away all of his claims. Awesome.

Mr. Jabba, with this standard in place, your argument is going to fall like a house of cards.

Actually Jabba has failed to show any mistake on McCrone's part.

 

[Belz...]

I don't get the shroud thing. I mean, if Jesus was really resurrected, why would this miracle leave traces on the shroud at all ? And why would it matter ?

 

[Gao]

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

And how would any of this be the slightest indication that the shroud existed before the 14th century?

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

Jabba

So far, virtually no evidence has been provided of authenticity in the first place (from what I've seen, just that one page of a codex that upon examination, does not seem to show this particular shroud), so even if we didn't have the carbon dating and the like, I don't see why I should consider authenticity to be at all likely. Keep in mind that you need to provide positive evidence of authenticity, not just disprove those who claim a late date or forgery has been proven.

 

[catsmate]

Actually I think I'll let Doctors Hall, Tite and Hedges have their say:



Picture from the press conference announcing the results of the radiocarbon dating 13OCT1988.

 

[IanS]

Me:
- "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.

Gao:
Please explain how this is even remotely useful for dating.

Me:
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?




Gao,

Re #1: I think you're right. The body didn't have to be dead. And worse, based merely upon my claims (A & B) above, the "body" didn't even have to be that of a past or present living creature -- it could have been a statue or something.

Mostly, from just A&B above, I'm forced to think that the image and apparent bloodstains are not painted on. They are, somehow, some sort of imprint. Painting -- with the above results -- should have been extremely difficult, and seemingly unnecessary (Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

I would need to include more premises (and evidence supporting all premises involved) in order to conclude that the "body" was that of a once living, creature... I'll sure try to get around to doing that, but first I need to address your second question.

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

Jabba

Why did you spend time writing the above post, when your only task is to tell us whether you have any genuine science journal where a genuine independent scientist says the C14 is wrong.

You have tried to duck that question literally at least 50 times now.

I pointed out to you 20 pages back that all other discussion about blood etc. is 100% worthless if the C14 dates are correct ...

... so AGAIN (50th time!!!!) - your ONLY task here is to answer the following question -

Q. Can you post a reference to any genuine science Journal where a genuine independent scientist claims the C14 is wrong? Yes or No?


Do not post anything else until you give a clear honest answer to that question - do you have any such paper, or not?

 

[Wolrab]

How many of you have ever dealt with a child that, when told to do a chore, will rant, rave, cry, and carry on for an hour, expending way more time and energy than the chore itself would require?

Jabba keeps up his jibber jabber with excuses and pointless responses when he could have presented his imaginary counter to C14 aging months (has it been that long? yup start date is 12/23/11!) ago.

Let's all stop responding until he puts up something of substance.

 

[catsmate]

Why did you spend time writing the above post, when your only task is to tell us whether you have any genuine science journal where a genuine independent scientist says the C14 is wrong.

You have tried to duck that question literally at least 50 times now.

I pointed out to you 20 pages back that all other discussion about blood etc. is 100% worthless if the C14 dates are correct ...

... so AGAIN (50th time!!!!) - your ONLY task here is to answer the following question -

Q. Can you post a reference to any genuine science Journal where a genuine independent scientist claims the C14 is wrong? Yes or No?


Do not post anything else until you give a clear honest answer to that question - do you have any such paper, or not?

I suspect he'll either ignore the question or:

• bring Ray Rogers up again
• bring up the Kouznetsov/Ivanov/Veletsky paper in the Journal of Archaeological Science, dealt with here and rebutted by Jull, Donahue and Damon in that same journal in '96
• bring up Benford and Marino again

It's not like he's got much actual science to work with.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Me:
- "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.

Evidence?

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.

Does it matter? The picture might well have been added after the "blood"stains. So what?

Me:
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?

Not necessarily. In fact that is yet another weak spot in your argumentation: IF the shroud was from the dead body of a crucified person, then why all the blood? In any culture, except most recently, executed persons were left on the cross, gallows, etc. for show, deterrent, or to humiliate them even more. Certainly, they were not taken down till after sunset, as the people tasked with that job were night-men.

So, this body hung in the hot sun for hours after death had incurred, then it was taken down, wrapped in a shroud and carried to the grave. By that time, all blood would have been thoroughly coagulated, and while handling the body might have left blobs of gore on the cloth, it would certainly not have been a set of bloodstains giving a detailed picture of the wounds (the flogging wounds, incurred houres before death would have been dried and caked).

So, the nice blood-stain pattern is really yet another evidence of fakery.

Mostly, from just A&B above, I'm forced to think that the image and apparent bloodstains are not painted on. They are, somehow, some sort of imprint. Painting -- with the above results -- should have been extremely difficult, and seemingly unnecessary (Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

Probably because it was added AFTER the "blood" stains.

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

No. 'Painting' can have a wide meaning. Remember, this statement was made before the concept of printing was invented (or at least commonly used), thus an artist might well have used the term 'painting' for a process we would now term 'printing'.

Also, of course, you have not shown it is not a painting.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

No. First of all, he could be wrong about one thing, and right about another, secondly, we do not have conclusive evidence that there IS blood on it.

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

You are already, I have to assume wilfully, distracted: As long as you cannot provide evidence to counter the C14 result, everything else is just hand-waving. You have been told this numerous times. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Hans

 

[Dinwar]

Re #1: I think you're right. The body didn't have to be dead. And worse, based merely upon my claims (A & B) above, the "body" didn't even have to be that of a past or present living creature -- it could have been a statue or something.

Mostly, from just A&B above, I'm forced to think that the image and apparent bloodstains are not painted on. They are, somehow, some sort of imprint. Painting -- with the above results -- should have been extremely difficult, and seemingly unnecessary (Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

Argument from Incredulity. You, Jabba, can't see how this could be done, and consider it difficult (while making unsupported assumptions all over the place). You've yet to demonstrate any artistic skill or expertise in painting; thus, your incredulity is without value.

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

Let's say I agree with you--which I don't, considering you've yet to demonstrate that it's not a painting. This means that a guy in the 14th century called what he did painting--not terribly unlikely, considering that they probably didn't have a detailed taxonomy of ways to put pigment on cloth back then. However, let's assume the best for you--let's assume that the artists was wrong to say "painting". You've STILL got two facts that you've yet to demonstrate to be wrong, and which force us to reject a date beyond the 13th century for the age of the shroud:

1) the C14 dating, and
2) when the shroud appeared in the historical record

Without disproving those claims, even if the artist was lying and trying to take undiserved credit, the shroud STILL. ISN'T. OLD. ENOUGH.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

You DO realize that by this logic we can discard every single thing you've said, right? I mean, you've committed so many errors in this thread alone that by your logic we shouldn't bother to listen to you.

Second, you still haven't proven that there's blood on the shroud. We've been assuming there was ad arguendum, but I think I'm done with that game since you're using that assumption to discard any data you don't like. Prove there's blood on the shroud, Jabba.

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

Blah blah blah, more "Here's what I'm going to do" garbage that we've pointed out numerous times is a complete waste of time.

 

[Akhenaten]

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture.

Me:

​

 

[pakeha]

Somehow, I just KNEW Jabba's response would live up to expectations.
I won't quote it in full again

....
- "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.

Gao:
Please explain how this is even remotely useful for dating.

A very good question, Gao.
Any answer to it, Jabba?

... the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed. ...

An excellent example of the TS authenticity arguments- they simply can't cope with the carbon 14 results.
What explanation is there for the Vatican's acceptance of those results, I wonder?

...For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well. ...

Why?
For that conclusion to be valid, you'll have to show there WAS blood on the TS.
In addition, that the TS WASN'T painted.

...Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. ...

Do you mean, premises you haven't posted up here or on other discussions around the Internet over the years, Jabba?

... you have not proven that there is no image under the blood. ...

An excellent point.
How about it, Jabba?
Are you going to show why you assume there is no image under the 'blood'?

.....All competent, properly-conducted microanalytical tests for blood or hemoglobin on the Shroud have been negative.

You mean kitchen chemistry doesn't trump lab work?

 

[catsmate]

You mean kitchen chemistry doesn't trump lab work?

Even the best work of the shroudies, Heller and Adler, only showed the presence of porphyrin, certainly not prooof of blood. Their other "tests" only showed the presence of iron and protein, constituents of the pigments and binder from which the shroud was created. The "blood" evidence is as worthless as the shroudies attempts to explain away the radiocarbon dating with bogus claims of "contamination" and "invisible patches" or Frei's pollen fakery.

 

[Dinwar]

I KNEW Dr. Dutch had a list of data necessary for the shroudies to be right!

It's in this discussion, which is well worth reading in its entirety.

The part that's important is this exerpt:

In order to prove the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection, the Shroud would have to:

• Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
• Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
• Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
• Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
• Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
• Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
• No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed

Break any link, and the Shroud no longer makes its case. So, even if the shroud is the actual burial shroud of Christ, all we have is a historical relic connected to a famous person.

Thus far, Jabba has only attempted the first and third on this list. He has in fact failed at both. But even if he did succeed in convincing us, we still COULD NOT honestly accept the shroud's authenticity. If any single link in the chain of reasoning described above is broken, the shroud becomes nothing more than an interesting artifact--even if it actually was the burial shroud of the Risen Lord--because that's all we can prove it is.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

We would all appreciate it if your very next answer explains why the 14C dating is incorrect; please cite a scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed publication. Remember- if the shroud did not exist at the time of Christ, it cannot be Christ's burial shroud. Anything else you bring up would be irrelevant. Thanks!

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, Dinwar!

 

[Jabba]

In case anyone was worried -- not to worry, we're out west visiting our son and his wife, and my time is especially limited.

In case you need something to read, you can read my very brief auto(alleged)biography at http://messiahornot.com/Biography2.php. I'm not just a kook.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

I've no interest in your biography, auto or not. I'm sorry, but this is a discussion of the shroud of Turin, not Jabba the JREF member.