Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Marduk]

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence--- Jabba

after years of being immersed in this subject you're having a hard time finding qualified evidence

go on, make the mental leap into working out why that is, then do the decent thing and admit it

 

[Garrette]

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

But you have been touting your evidence for decades before this forum and months on this forum.

You're just now beginning to look for it? Or are you finally realizing that what you have presented is invalid?

 

[kerikiwi]

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

It looks like we're in for a very, very long wait.
Or, you could just agree that no such evidence exists

 

[pakeha]

If the wait gets too long I'll start posting up my photos from the Basilica of the Holy Blood...
And quoting from the literature.

 

[Randomity99]

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. I probably agree with Randi when he exposes fake psychics, UFO or bigfoot claims, because those things cannot withstand a very simple scientific examination.

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud: I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find. If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

 

[Randomity99]

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

1) Straw man arguments: don’t waste time on claims of resurrection energy or cosmic forces etc., because the shroud sites don’t rely on those. If you want to win an argument you must engage your opponent’s BEST evidence. How did the accurate perspective information get onto the cloth? People will speculate endlessly about how the image may have been formed. Duplicating it in ALL its significant qualities will be the only real accomplishment. And so far that has not been done.
2) Moving the goal line: there are claims here that no peer-reviewed studies admit the shroud’s mysterious properties. But when Rogers published in Thermochimica Acta he is then dismissed as not legitimate. His claims have been verified by two other independent sources. This is documented. You can easily find it if you want to. Science is seldom unanimous in agreement, so is there any amount of scientific documentation that will convince you there are unexplained properties to the shroud? I doubt it.
3) Relying on discredited science yourself: McCrone’s claims about the image have been shown erroneous by several others, and again this is well documented. You can see it first hand by simply looking at microscopic photos of the image threads compared to threads with pigment on them. The overwhelming conclusion of those who examined the image is that the image is formed by fibrils darkened by a chemical change, not a foreign element deposited on them. McCrone was not a chemist and never examined the shroud himself. His claims about both the shroud and the Vinland map are strongly denounced by scientists with more pertinent expertise than his.
4) Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

 

[Marduk]

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. .

I'm guessing here that you haven't read the thread in its entirety, especially the parts where the sceptics went out and joined shroud foruns to discuss the evidence with the believers or the part where it hasn't raised any controversy at all, unless you count where the sceptics have been asking for a credible refutation of the C14 evidence from page 1 and where after 47 pages the shroudie has yet to post it,

Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

which one do you post at ?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hi Randomity99; welcome to the forum.

[snip]

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

[snip]

As far as the skeptics are concerned, this thread is ample evidence of the power of religion and belief to cloud people's minds.

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

[snip]

4)Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

[/snip]

Let's put this very succinctly:

The carbon-14 testing definitively dated the shroud to the thirteenth century. So long as that result stands, the shroud cannot be the burial robe of a man from the first century.

All other points are moot.

 

[Mashuna]

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

It's only a different case because it's linked to religious belief. If Piltdown man had originally been claimed as a divine image of Jesus, then there would still be hundreds of pages of debates going on. Likewise, if the shroud were originally claimed to be the death mask of Plato, when debunked no-one would bother arguing against the C14 evidence.

 

[Giordano]

Randomity99,
Welcome to the thread. I do urge you to, if you haven't already, read the entire thread so we do't have to rehash points already covered in detail. The issue really is a single crucial point: the 14C data clearly dates the shroud to the 13th century era, and therefore convincingly document it caannot be the burial shroud of Christ. If you wish to argue it is miraculous, okay by me, but unless you can scientifically prove the 14C data is wrong, then you need to argue it is the miraculous bathrobe of Mohammedan, or the magic bedspread of a Buddhist monk. That's the point that ultimately Jabba dmitted he had no evidence against, and the key one for you to address.

 

[IanS]

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

Well, the above is very clearly an admission that you do NOT have any such evidence!

That's exactly what you have been asked for the last 40 pages!

With the above you are now finally admitting, apparently unintentionally, that you most definitely do not have any genuine scientific paper which has ever disputed the C14 dates.

Right. Well that’s the end of the discussion then!

 

[pakeha]

Welcome to JREF, Randomity!
I'm glad you're here.
I enjoy seeing new points of view on subjects which have been discussed here over the years. You might consider checking out some of the older threads on the subject here.

I have some questions about your two posts.

...I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud: I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find. If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

Please feel free to post up the names of those forums. I'd love to go over there and discuss the TS with pro-shroud defenders. And yes, I think you should post up the places you want us to go to. That's to ensure we're all on the same page, you know.

I take it your post is an invitation to discuss the TS on one or more of these sites?
Or are you here to discuss the TS at JREF?

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

1)... don’t waste time on claims of resurrection energy or cosmic forces etc., because the shroud sites don’t rely on those.

Could you point out a specific case where someone here mentioned either 'resurrection energy or cosmic forces', please?
Obviously you think we've spent time on that or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

If you want to win an argument you must engage your opponent’s BEST evidence.

Well, if you've read here, then you know that the debunkers of the TS often take the line that the dating of the TS, accepted by the Vatican, is quite enough to show it's mundane origin. Duplicating it is simply not an issue.

2) Moving the goal line: there are claims here that no peer-reviewed studies admit the shroud’s mysterious properties. But when Rogers published in Thermochimica Acta he is then dismissed as not legitimate. His claims have been verified by two other independent sources.

I'd be grateful if you posted up those independant sources, please. And yes, I ask you to link them to ensure we're talking about the same thing.

3) Relying on discredited science yourself: McCrone’s claims about the image have been shown erroneous by several others, and again this is well documented.

What do McCrones claims have to do with the dating of the TS?

4) Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

That's an interesting point of view, but I think it's important to take into account the Vatican has accepted the dating of the TS to medieval times.

As far as I know, that date has not been credibly challenged by the scientific community. As of yet.
It will be fascinating to learn how the TS was done, of course.

As I mentioned above, I was recently in the Basilica of the Holy Blood, where there is a cloth claimed to be the one Joseph of Arimethea used to clean Jesus' corpse.
I myself have never quite understood why pro-shroud defenders think Jesus' corpse would have been readied for burial without being washed and anointed.
What do you think, Randomity?

 

[Agatha]

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

I wonder, is the evidence which shows the carbon dating to be wrong hiding somewhere, and no shroud-proponents have found it yet despite years of searching? Or is the carbon dating correct, as the Vatican accepts?

Rational people will lean towards the second choice. But people who require a mediaeval forgery to be a 1st century artefact, perhaps in order to bolster their faith, will lean towards the first. It is a sad state of affairs.

Welcome to the forum, Randomity99. What are your views on the carbon dating? Because really, unless you can show that dating to be in error, any other points are moot.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

- I should have been more specific. In the above, I was referring to only the carbon dating sub-issue.

- Back in 1786, I had said:
- OK. At the moment, I see three main issues that you guys wish me to address:
1) How much I know about carbon dating.
2) Can I point to any independent scientific paper arguing against the dating?
3) What does my claim that no one has been able to duplicate the image on the Shroud have to do with the carbon dating?

- Then, after several responses, in 1794 I said:
- OK, scientific papers it is.
- I'll be back.

- So anyway, I haven't been able to find -- re the carbon dating --what I was expecting to find, and you guys have continually told me not to say anything unless I have something useful to say. So I kept looking and also analyzing my situation. Not to worry -- I still have some excuses up my sleeve.
- Hopefully, I'll be back shortly.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

No worries, Jabba.
I have a variety of photos of the basilica of the Holy Blood to post up.
They (the devout) think Jesus was washed before entombed.
And have the cloth to prove it!


The TS crowd is so much more...rustic.

 

[Marduk]

I still have some excuses up my sleeve.

Hasn't anyone told you, excuses instead of evidence is a FAIL

 

[Jabba]

Preponderance of Evidence

Randomity99,

- Thanks for your support. You're the first. Hope I don't disappoint.

- My basic claim is that the great preponderance of evidence actually favors Shroud authenticity -- as strange as that sounds.
- I think that the only substantial evidence against authenticity is the RC dating and the evidence against the supernatural. Essentially, it seems to me, everything else lines up with authenticity.
- And personally, I think that there is plenty of reasonable doubt concerning both of those, so the remaining evidence needs to be taken into account.
- Hopefully, that's clear -- and not, off-putting.

--- Jabba

 

[Gao]

If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

But it has been, and there isn't. Even this thread is really just going around in circles about the carbon dating. Even without that immensely strong evidence of the carbon dating, there's literally nothing I've seen that gives any indication that the shroud predates the time it was "found". It's the religious equivalent of a guy claiming that a weird looking rock comes from an alien space ship. I simply see no reason to think that there's anything strange here in the first place.

 

[catsmate]

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. I probably agree with Randi when he exposes fake psychics, UFO or bigfoot claims, because those things cannot withstand a very simple scientific examination.

Neither can the shroud; all the science shows it to be a medieval fake.

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case.

It's not actually. Another fake exploited to extract money from the gullible.

It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades.

Exactly. And all this study shows it to be a medieval fake.

And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here!

Less than the Patterson-Gilmore film and bigfoot in general. On occasion some believe turns up to proclaim it genuine. Alas the facts and evidence show otherwise.

If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

There isn't much to discuss about the shroud except the need the believers have for it to be real.

I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud:

Good, there isn't any so this will save time.

I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find.

Alas this supposed "evidence" crumbles rapidly when examined by a perspective other than "the shroud must be real because I need it to be".

If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

Why? So desperate shroudies can censor their posts? Squirm and evade? Start throwing insults?

 

[pakeha]

Do you have any idea how many holy blood relics there are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_of_Christ#Relics_of_the_Blood_around_the_world

All of them authentic, of course.

Still, the real thing is in Bruges:
"The devotion to the Precious Blood was an especial phenomenon of Flemish piety in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that gave rise to the iconic image of Grace as the "Fountain of Life," filled with blood, pouring from the wounded "Lamb of God" or the "Holy Wounds" of Christ. The image, which was the subject of numerous Flemish paintings was in part spurred by the renowned relic of the Precious Blood, which had been noted in Bruges at least since the twelfth century[3] and which gave rise, from the late thirteenth century, to the observances, particular to Bruges, of the procession of the "Saint Sang" from its chapel.[4]"