Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I agree. In fact we are not really a team, just a bunch of individuals. However, this also means that our expectations differ. And our patience.
For myself, I have run out of patience with a poster who deliberately keeps evading the central issue and who thinks he can dictate the way others argue. But, this is my personal choice, and others, including Jabba, can continue pursuing the paths they will.
Hans
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating - Reweaving?
Dave,
- Here’s my best guess, so far, at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".
- We have assumed that the sample had been closely examined microscopically prior to the cutting, but it hadn’t. The “tiny” corner used for the sample had nothing more than a naked eye examination. And, the re-weave was not visible to the naked eye.
- Keep in mind that
1) Fleury said it didn’t matter where they cut – it was all the same. This was obviously an overstatement, considering that some repairs had already been acknowledged. Maybe, she just assumed that they would never use that obviously problematic corner for the sample
2) Seems like the adjoining Raes sample was an obvious repair.
3) Fleury was not present at the sample selection.
4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…
5) And, experts do claim that re-weaving can be done well enough so as to not be visible to the naked eye.
- Let me know where I've missed contradictory evidence to what I just claimed, or where I need to provide citations (I assume that you already accept some of what I just claimed, and it takes me awhile to look things up).
--- Jabba
Dave,
- Here’s my best guess, so far, at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".
- We have assumed that the sample had been closely examined microscopically prior to the cutting, but it hadn’t. The “tiny” corner used for the sample had nothing more than a naked eye examination. And, the re-weave was not visible to the naked eye.
- Keep in mind that
1) Fleury said it didn’t matter where they cut – it was all the same. This was obviously an overstatement, considering that some repairs had already been acknowledged. Maybe, she just assumed that they would never use that obviously problematic corner for the sample
2) Seems like the adjoining Raes sample was an obvious repair.
3) Fleury was not present at the sample selection.
4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…
5) And, experts do claim that re-weaving can be done well enough so as to not be visible to the naked eye.
- Let me know where I've missed contradictory evidence to what I just claimed, or where I need to provide citations (I assume that you already accept some of what I just claimed, and it takes me awhile to look things up).
--- Jabba
Last edited:
This is pure speculation that isn't useful without evidence that this is in fact the case. Though I do have a question about this:
Which experts claim this when, and when has this been shown to be possible?
Which experts claim this when, and when has this been shown to be possible?
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Aren't the highlited passages contradictory?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I don't think you've missed any contradictory evidence, I think you've deliberately ignored contradictory evidence. Your point 5 is incorrect. Why it is incorrect has been explained to you many, many times, including more than once within the last couple of pages of this thread.
As you won't give a baseline figure for how much contamination the Shroud would need for the C14 dating to be incorrect could you, perhaps, provide a baseline figure for how many times you need a fact pointing out to you before you'll stop pretending that you've never heard of it?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I don't think that is true.
The section that was cut for C14, was adjacent to section previously cut for Gilbert Raes. And afaik that entire area had been photographed many hundreds, if not thousands of times, inc. via microscopic high magnification.
As you know, Mark Antonacci, when criticising Rogers paper, said that precisely that area had been photographed thousands of times, adding that there is a very clear highly magnified photo of that same area on public display in the Shroud museum itself (ie the "Centro" Museum).
Also, afaik, the three Radiocarbon labs actually examined their samples through high power microscopes prior to their testing. And I expect they must have taken numerous photos of that.
So I think it is completely untrue to say that the area has not been examined by any more than the naked eye. On the contrary, afaik it has been microscopically photographed hundreds of times by all sorts of different people.
Why? Where is the evidence for that?
If the Raes section was obviously a repaired section, then why did everyone agree to cutting the C14 sample from right next to it? That process of deciding where to cut was subject to numerous meetings and numerous discussions in order that everyone present, about 30 different people, were completely satisfied and in agreement that the section was specifically NOT an area near to any patch, repair, or contamination.
At what date was it claimed that Raes had mistakenly examined a repair or patch? Who made that claim? And did they make that claim before or after the C14 results were announced?
Which "experts" are they?
Your fellow shroud believers may now be making that claim, but Fluery-Lemberg said the exact opposite. And she was the Vatican's own principal expert on ancient textiles. And along with prof Ghibirti, she had the unique opportunity to spend a whole month examining the shroud with the backing cloth removed for the first time 500 years. In contrast, how many of your so-called experts have ever even seen the shroud at all? Any of them?
Fluery-Lemberg says that so-called "invisible" repairs are always visible to the expert eye, both from the front of the repair and even more obviously from the reverse side. And that's just a naked eye check. Whereas we are actually talking about no such evidence being seen by anyone even in any of the highly magnified photos taken through microscopes ... inc. those taken by the radiocarbon labs themselves.
I don’t think any of this is new by the way. It seems to me you have made all these same claims before in this thread. And what you are doing now is, yet again, just recycling the same claims every 20 pages or so.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Jabba, you know very, very well this is arrant nonsense.
It has been pointed out numerous times an 'invisible' reweave is 'invisible' only on one side.
When are you going to give up on such a thread-bare argument?
Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter for three reasons.IanS said:
1) The samples were run via standard procedures, meaning that if no one objects to the thousands if not millions of C14 dates thus far generated in archaeology there's no reason to question these.
2) As has been pointed out, "invisible weaves" are only invisible from one side, and are quite obvious from the other. Since both sides of the shroud were examined, this rules out any possibility of an invisible weave being used to add a patch.
3) Even if that's not convincing, in the first few pages of this thread it was pointed out that trace element analysis proved that the samples were the same as the rest of the cloth.
Doesn't matter, really. I can take a sample of igneous material from right next to a xenolith (I actually can--I have the rocks right next to my desk). The fact that it's next to a xenolith--a rock that's not part of the original melt, but older and incorporated because it didn't full melt--doesn't mean that my sample is of that xenolith. I doubt that this sample site in question is a patch; Jabba has lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned, and if he told me water was wet I'd doubt him. But even if it's true, the fact that a part of the shroud not used in the C14 dating was a patch doesn't negate the C14 dates because these are two different samples.
If any ONE of labs which did the C14 dating had original material, it's 100% proof that the shroud is too young to be the burial shroud of Jesus. Even if two were from invisible patches that only Jabba can determine exist, it wouldn't matter--all it takes is one.
As for invisible patches, there's only one way to do it--take apart the fabric and spin new thread onto each and every thread of the shroud. The new thread would have to be the same type, and have been stored in the same conditions. Then the whole thing would have to be re-woven EXACTLY like it was before it was taken apart. The first two are impossible (I've done nalbinding, and even an amateur can see where the lengths of thread are joined), and the third is so unlikely that we can call it impossible (you have to get everything to line up exactly right, or the picture will be off and that off-ness will be very, very noticeable). And none of that gets around the trace element analysis, which proves that the samples were not from a patch.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating - Reweaving?
- See #'s 39 and 43 in http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf. Follow link given in 43, then link given under "The Art of French Reweaving.
--- Jabba
Pakeha,
- See #'s 39 and 43 in http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf. Follow link given in 43, then link given under "The Art of French Reweaving.
--- Jabba
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Do you really think that linking to a shroudie site is a good idea?
http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/reweave.htm
Here's a company that actually does invisible weaving. The French reweaving style works only for very small pieces of the garment, and requires threads to be taken from other parts of hte garment. If I'm reading it correctly, the threads are woven into the textile, then that weave is extended across the damaged portion. It will look invisible to the casual eye, but hardly to a trained one. This is like maille--when I'm working with a big piece minor errors that no one else can see stick out at me, because I'm so used to looking at it. Similarly, someone used to looking at cloth will see the variation in the weave pattern pretty quickly. It's good enough that no one would worry about wearing a rewoven shirt or pair of pants, but it's not truly invisible by any stretch of the imagination. And that's giving you the best of it:
Doesn't matter, though, since a patch would be a BETTER place to take the sample than an unaltered part of the artifact. The trace element analysis proves that the sample is from the exact same cloth as the rest of the shroud--meaning that even if there was a re-woven patch it's re-woven from the exact same threads as the rest of the shroud, and therefore from the exact same time, and therefore the C14 age holds true. In fact, if they took the threads from numerous parts of the shroud (a likely method, to get enough material without making an obvious hole of equal size to the one being fixed) it would be BETTER to use the patch, because it'd represent a more or less random sample, and therefore contamination (and of course, we don't know how much contamination is needed because our resident shroud "expert" is unwilling or unable to do the basic algebra necessary to calculate it) in any one area would be overwhelmed by the relatively clean threads from all the rest of the areas.
Here's a company that actually does invisible weaving. The French reweaving style works only for very small pieces of the garment, and requires threads to be taken from other parts of hte garment. If I'm reading it correctly, the threads are woven into the textile, then that weave is extended across the damaged portion. It will look invisible to the casual eye, but hardly to a trained one. This is like maille--when I'm working with a big piece minor errors that no one else can see stick out at me, because I'm so used to looking at it. Similarly, someone used to looking at cloth will see the variation in the weave pattern pretty quickly. It's good enough that no one would worry about wearing a rewoven shirt or pair of pants, but it's not truly invisible by any stretch of the imagination. And that's giving you the best of it:
the above link said:
Doesn't matter, though, since a patch would be a BETTER place to take the sample than an unaltered part of the artifact. The trace element analysis proves that the sample is from the exact same cloth as the rest of the shroud--meaning that even if there was a re-woven patch it's re-woven from the exact same threads as the rest of the shroud, and therefore from the exact same time, and therefore the C14 age holds true. In fact, if they took the threads from numerous parts of the shroud (a likely method, to get enough material without making an obvious hole of equal size to the one being fixed) it would be BETTER to use the patch, because it'd represent a more or less random sample, and therefore contamination (and of course, we don't know how much contamination is needed because our resident shroud "expert" is unwilling or unable to do the basic algebra necessary to calculate it) in any one area would be overwhelmed by the relatively clean threads from all the rest of the areas.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Your sense of disgust is noted now tell us how your sense of disgust relates to the authenticity of the shroud.
davefoc
Philosopher
It related only to the quality of the discussion in this thread about the authenticity of the shroud.
If your point is that was an off topic digression, then perhaps so. If you had a different point in mind then I have missed it and if so then my apologies.
But the question got me to thinking. Am I disgusted with some or all of the pro-authenticity advocacy people? I'm not sure. I tend to be more forgiving of what I think of as the true believer crowd. For one thing, I'd be in a pretty big state of continuous disgust given how much of the world believes in what looks like hokum to me. Am I disgusted by the scientists that have promoted what looks like complete crap to me for reasons that seem driven by some kind of self interest bias? Yeah, I suppose so, but it's not clear how to divide the pro-authenticity people between the cynics that pander to the credulous and the actual true believers for which even a scientific background has yielded low critical thinking capability.
davefoc
Philosopher
I went to take a look at this. I thought the back of the head images were more distinct, but I couldn't make out much more than a water stain looking blob where the back of the head would be. Maybe the image of the back of the head might include the top of the head?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Quite right, Ravenwood, there isn't enough of a 'gap' between front and back images to account for the volume of a real body, is there?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Please take the trouble to verify your links.
There is neither a #39 nor a #43 in the link you gave me.
Also, sending readers to Marino and Prior (yet again) without naming the site, rather than directly to the site you want them to read seems rather as though you are directing traffic to a site that's been heavily critised here.
In any case, Dinwar's comments stand, of course.
You've never addressed the fact that 'invisible' weaving uses threads from the same cloth, have you, Jabba?
Added
Here's the site TS authenticity advocates quote from:
http://www.withoutatrace.com/reweaving.html
And here are several more sites:
http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/
http://www.ravefabricare.com/true-q...(or-rips-or-tears)-in-your-fine-garments.aspx
From a how-to page.
http://www.ehow.com/how_12168622_reweave-suit.html
A cursory Google search would have shown anyone interested in the TS just how ridiculous the 'invisible' weave idea is, especially when imagined to counter or falsify the C14 dating.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Don't take this the wrong way, because it is not your doing, but Jabba is adopting you as the sole spokesperson for all of the contributers on this thread.
- Status