Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[davefoc]

...

BY the way if you want to know, making such a calculation, and taking a very rough approximation, I get that a sample 2000 years old should have 78% 14C left, a sample from from 750 years ago ( from year ~1250 ) has 91% 14C left.

So you have the following :
Time period 14C left quantity per mole
Modern carbon 100% 1 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so 6.0 10^11 per mole
0 AD carbon 78% 0,78 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~4,7 10^11 per mole
Seemingly 1250 AD 91% 0,91 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~5,5 10^11 per mole

Let us define the quantity Mc , Mh, Mt as follow :
Mh=historic quantity of carbon original
Mt=total sample given
Mc=contaminating foreign modern carbon
m Carbon molar mass

It is obvious that Mt=Mh+Mc and also that the relationship ebtween the carbon quantity is fixed (number carbon 14 sample=contaminated carbon 14+historical 14C)

...

I used Aepervius's data and thought about the problem in my own way. My answer was:

1.6 moles of carbon contaminant for every mole of genuine sample tested.

My logic:

Ms - moles of carbon in the unadulterated sample
Mc - moles of carbon in contaminant

4.7 x 10¹¹ * Ms = C14 atoms in the unadulterated sample
6.0 x 10¹¹ * Mc = C14 atoms in the contaminant

5.5 x 10¹¹ * (Mc+Ms) = C14 atoms in adulterated sample

4.7 x 10¹¹ * Ms + 6.0 x 10¹¹ * Mc = total C14 atoms in adulterated sample


4.7 x 10¹¹ * Ms + 6.0 x 10¹¹ * Mc = 5.5 x 10¹¹ * (Mc+Ms)

solve (I hope) for Mc in terms of Ms
Mc = 1.6 Ms

The way I interpret this result is that for every gram of a 0 AD unadulterated sample there would need to be 1.6 grams of contaminant from a modern source added to look like a 1250 AD sample. If the contaminant was not modern more contaminant would be required to get the same result.

I didn't check my work by comparing it with what the experts have calculated but I knew it was a large number and that is why I thought the contaminant theory had been rejected by the shroud authenticity advocates.

Any ridicule for an error in logic or calculation will be appreciated.

ETA:
Aepervius' weird spelling of soot (does he pronounce it so that it rhymes with out and doubt? Is this some weird British thing like gaol?) got me to thinking about how much soot would be required to contaminate the sample. It is a smaller number since a much higher proportion of soot is carbon than of a textile.

I didn't find much about the composition of fabric by elements on line but assuming that fabric is made up principally of compounds consisting of glucose a rough estimate of the percentage of fabric that is carbon is 40%. This is based on glucose formula C6H12O6 atomic weight =~ 6 * 12 + 12 * 1 + 6 * 16 =~ 180.

So if the contaminant was modern soot (or sout ) instead of modern cloth I think that only about 40 % of the amount of contaminant would be required to skew the date to 1250AD. My estimate for that is:

.64 grams of soot (.4 * 1.6) for every gram of uncontaminated 0AD sample

And that's a much smaller number. Maybe nobody noticed that about 40% of the sample by weight was soot.

 

[Dinwar]

Friend of mine gave me this:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=c14%20contamination#

Jabba, now you don't even have to type it into Google. I expect a full answer to my C14 question in your next post.

 

[pakeha]

- That paper is a little confusing -- there being two parts. The first part is where you'll find those numbers and links.

Sorry, I don't see them. Could you post up the article (or link) to the reweaving article?
Did you read my links to explanations of just what reweaving entails?

- Sure, but why would this crafty forger screw that up?
- Also, if you really dig into the evidence, it's pretty clear that this wasn't a painting.

Who ever said it was a crafty forger?
And however it was made, from what other posters have demonstrated, it certainly wasn't in the 1st century.

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?

Judging from the shroudie blog I posted up earlier today, I'd have to think that shroudies are very emotionally invested in the authenticity of the TS.

- Dave had asked me for my best guess (speculation) as to how the reweave would have been accomplished. And, while I didn't give citations, I did point to supportive claims that researchers have made -- e.g., that Fleury just said not to worry, as the cloth is all the same. ..

Did you read the links I posted up on the subject??
You realise Fleury was entrusted with the restoration of the TS in 2002? Do you think there is any living person who has examined and handled and studied the TS more than has she?

Dinwar,
- Do you agree that we now have two sets of experts disagreeing with each other? If so, I'll have to do some further analysis. Hopefully, you'll need to do some as well.
--- Jabba

You are ignoring my posted links, Jabba.
Why?

 

[davefoc]

Gao,
- Dave had asked me for my best guess (speculation) as to how the reweave would have been accomplished. And, while I didn't give citations, I did point to supportive claims that researchers have made -- e.g., that Fleury just said not to worry, as the cloth is all the same.
--- Jabba

The reason I asked for your thoughts about how somebody might create an invisible weave was because it went to what I think is a key issue as to a method for sorting out the truth of this matter. There is no doubt about it. One can find all the pro shroud authenticity arguments one could possibly want. The web is full of them. So it seems like just a battle of experts and one side or the other might be right. Who can tell, we're not experts?

But I think there is a way to sort this out. Biases provide a very strong influence on what people believe, so just because a lot of people believe something is not very good evidence that it is true. So to sort this one needs to actually make judgments about the credibility of the advocates for each side and the credibility of the evidence and arguments for both sides. Just providing a link to somebody that says an invisible patch is possible is not much evidence that an undetected patch was made to the shroud. How is that patch possible? Have you (Jabba) come across any information about a technique that you find plausible to make such a patch?

Have the people that said it was possible provided any evidence of medieval era patches or any era patches for that matter that were done so well that it would have gone undetected by the people that have inspected and photographed the shroud over the years? Have the people that said there is a patch pointed out where exactly this patch is and how it is they can detect it but people that have examined the shroud closely can't? Have you thought about the size of this undetected patch and what are the chances that the sample area just happened to fall within it?

Jabba said:

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Good question. And to understand why the skeptics think the shroudie beliefs are driven more by biases than facts you need to think about the facts yourself and you need to think about the credibility of the people advocating for shroud authenticity. If you do this and you find that the evidence favors shroud authenticity and that the shroud authenticity advocates are credible then you will have found your truth and there is really nothing that a skeptic could say that will disabuse you of your beliefs on that. There is no reason to believe the skeptics more than the shroudies unless you arrive at your own conclusions based on an objective review of the evidence that the skeptics are right.

I notice that you asked for Dinwar for some follow up information on his claim that trace element analysis had proven that a patch was impossible. That seemed like a good thing to do if you are searching for the truth about this. If after seeing Dinwar's evidence you find it credible are you prepared to accept that there is not a patch in the area where the C14 samples were taken?

 

[Aepervius]

@Davefoc yes that was soot not sout. I wrote it as it is "spoken" (s+ou+t) in french rather as how it is spelt in english.

I have identical equation to what you have I think, I can't remember all of it as it is at home, but at some point I must have made an error because I got in the end 40% original historical sample and 60% contaminant in the final sample.

Also using very approximate number you can get 50/50.

ETA: Does not matter anyway as the whole point for Jabba is the amount of contaminant is greater or nearly identical as the amount of historical carbon in the sample.

And that is a point which as far as I can tell KILLS any contamination hypothesis,a s there is no way the photographed sample people would much that much modern cloth fiber or soot contaminating the sample as much as it is half the weight of the sample.

 

[Dinwar]

I notice that you asked for Dinwar for some follow up information on his claim that trace element analysis had proven that a patch was impossible. That seemed like a good thing to do

Seems like, but isn't in this case. The issue is that I'm not making any new claims--I'm merely referencing an argument made earlier in this thread, one which has yet to be refuted. The data are here, IF Jabba cared to look. I'm not going to waste my time doing the leg work, just to have him ignore the argument again.

And that is a point which as far as I can tell KILLS any contamination hypothesis,

I'm not willing to go quite that far. What I will say is that we now have multiple calculations of the amount of contamination, all of which broadly agree (and none of which were done by a pro-contamination advocate such as Jabba, which is in and of itself quite telling). Jabba's next step is to determine and present how that degree of contamination came to be in the shroud. Not "could have occurred", but "actually DID occur". If Jabba can't do that, his entire argument fails--if he can't prove that that degree of contamination occurred, and the methods by which it happened, his hypothesis fails. Remember, all the advocates of the fraud hypothesis need in order to be correct is for less contamination than proposed to be present--if it's a 4th century fraud it's just as much a fraud as it would be if it were a 14th century fraud.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating - Reweaving?

The reason I asked for your thoughts about how somebody might create an invisible weave was because it went to what I think is a key issue as to a method for sorting out the truth of this matter. There is no doubt about it. One can find all the pro shroud authenticity arguments one could possibly want. The web is full of them. So it seems like just a battle of experts and one side or the other might be right. Who can tell, we're not experts?

But I think there is a way to sort this out. Biases provide a very strong influence on what people believe, so just because a lot of people believe something is not very good evidence that it is true. So to sort this one needs to actually make judgments about the credibility of the advocates for each side and the credibility of the evidence and arguments for both sides.
Just providing a link to somebody that says an invisible patch is possible is not much evidence that an undetected patch was made to the shroud…

Dave,
- I agree.

…How is that patch possible? Have you (Jabba) come across any information about a technique that you find plausible to make such a patch?..

- I do have a little to add to what I said back in post #2183, but I need to get a better handle on it – and before I do that, I need to answer Dinwar’s question...

--- Jabba

 

[kerikiwi]

Dave,
- I agree.

- I do have a little to add to what I said back in post #2183, but I need to get a better handle on it – and before I do that, I need to answer Dinwar’s question...

--- Jabba

Does your case now rest on the sample tested being of 14C origin, while the rest of the cloth is 1C?

 

[wardenclyffe]

It appears that the only way to do an "invisible" reweave* is to use threads from elsewhere in the fabric that most closely match the area to be patched. So that leads us to this scenario:

That one little corner of the shroud was actually from the 1st century, but it needed patching, so Medieval invisible reweavers very carefully took threads from other parts of the shroud. One thread here, one thread there. This way no one notices just a single thread missing from one area of the shroud or another. Using this method, they gather enough threads to create an invisible patch. And they didn't take just any threads. They had to make sure that the threads matched the area to be patched perfectly so that it would be invisible. So they made sure that the threads they harvested from the rest of the shroud were exact matches in color in twist of the fibres in make-up in every way down to the microscopic level.

But then it turns out that that one small corner that was tested actually was from the 1st Century, but all the rest of the shroud where they got all those threads that matched perfectly was from the 14th Century. Cue the trombone wah, wah, waaaaah sound.

That one tiny square inch had been a genuine piece of the shroud until it was patched in the 14th Century using threads from all over the fraudulent shroud. Darn the luck.

Ward

*Of course, by invisible I mean easily seen if you are looking and super easily seen if you are an expert looking at both sides of the fabric.

and P.S. I can't believe I'm contributing to this thread again. My self-control is slipping.

 

[pakeha]

^Never mind, wardenclyffe.
The invisible weave gambit is plausible enough until it's unraveled.
Then shock and amazement set in that people still use this gambit to justify their belief in the authenticity of the TS.

 

[catsmate]

@Davefoc yes that was soot not sout. I wrote it as it is "spoken" (s+ou+t) in french rather as how it is spelt in english.

I have identical equation to what you have I think, I can't remember all of it as it is at home, but at some point I must have made an error because I got in the end 40% original historical sample and 60% contaminant in the final sample.

Also using very approximate number you can get 50/50.

ETA: Does not matter anyway as the whole point for Jabba is the amount of contaminant is greater or nearly identical as the amount of historical carbon in the sample.

And that is a point which as far as I can tell KILLS any contamination hypothesis,a s there is no way the photographed sample people would much that much modern cloth fiber or soot contaminating the sample as much as it is half the weight of the sample.

In addition the whole contamination is a red herring; the laboratories performing the radiocarbon dating were well aware of possible contaminants and cleaned the samples thoroughly before testing them.

 

[pgwenthold]

^Never mind, wardenclyffe.
The invisible weave gambit is plausible enough until it's unraveled.

I don't even buy that. The "invisible weave" claim is a stretch from the beginning,*** and the instant you actually look for anything to support it, it turns laughable.

***You would have to think that the people in charge of doing the dating and selecting the part to date were a bunch of bumbling buffoons who never thought of that possibility. While I can accept that they could be shown to have made a mistake, I would never think it is likely and take that as an a priori assumption. These were serious people doing a serious project, and not a bunch of clowns at the circus. So there is no a priori reason to think that they were so clueless as to select a patched region, there is no reason on further inspection to suspect it, either. So the invisible patch is basically a non-starter.

 

[pgwenthold]

In addition the whole contamination is a red herring; the laboratories performing the radiocarbon dating were well aware of possible contaminants and cleaned the samples thoroughly before testing them.

Of course. They were specifically chosen for this project because of their expertise in doing these types of measurements. Yet, somehow, they are presumed to not do something completely obvious like remove external contaminants.

It's complete idiocy to suggest such a thing.

 

[pakeha]

In addition the whole contamination is a red herring; the laboratories performing the radiocarbon dating were well aware of possible contaminants and cleaned the samples thoroughly before testing them.

Indeed. You have to wonder if the Shroudies have ever understood that point.

I don't even buy that. The "invisible weave" claim is a stretch from the beginning,*** and the instant you actually look for anything to support it, it turns laughable. ...

Indeed.
Speaking of laughable, I posted the latest dust up at the shroud debate blog.
If you're amused by such things,
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin.html
A sample:

Why is it when Atheists like Freeman ask for evidence and get it that completely ignore the scientific evidence and turn all pseudo-scientific on us. I truely believe that they must reject the shroud at all costs because of the strong evidence for authenticity.

Even when googling about the shroud I couldn't believe all of the nonsensical information on the skeptical websites I have seen. Back in 2009 I was totally ignorant of the shroud and thought it was just some relic. Ironically it was the atheist funded and failed replication of the shroud , and all of the hoopla that surrounded it worldwide that got me to take a deeper look into it.

Thank God for websites such as yours that actually study the relevant info pertaining to the shroud.

Do you have a donate page ?
I think that would be a great idea to help this website grow

 

[Ladewig]

I said that if I came back, then I should be mocked mercilessly.
Feel free to mock mercilessly. I will not try to justify or defend my return.
I deserve all mocking that I receive. I am tempted to reply to every joke or
jape with "thank you, sir, may I have another," but I want to see this thread die.


ETA: see 2271.

To all the skeptics, I say stop it.
No progress can be made and I will explain why.

Many of you believe that getting Jabba to understand the contamination ratio is crucial. You believe that if he realizes how unlikely it is for three different labs to ignore that amount of dirt, then he will have to accept the C14 dating as true - or at the very least take one step closer to being true. You are grossly mistaken.

Jabba has read several assertions about the provenance of the Shroud and the non-reproducable nature of the Shroud. He accepts each one of these statements as indisputable facts. Nothing can be done to shake his beliefs on even the smallest of these assertions. Jabba realizes that the assertions about the Shroud's genuineness and the C14 results cannot both be true, therefore, in his mind, there must be something wrong with the C14 results. He cannot describe the exact nature of the flawed results, but he is quite confident the results are incorrect. Jabba has absolutely no understanding of how assertions rise to the level of facts and how facts rise to the level of evidence. That's why he thinks the Shroud's provenance (dating back to Jesus's time) is unimpeachable evidence of the antiquity of the cloth.

Getting him to understand the amount of contamination is useless. Even if you could show that the only way the tests results could be mistaken was that the amount of dirt was nine times the amount of fabric, Jabba's conclusion would simply be: the labs are even more incompetent than I first thought because somehow they missed dirt that accounted for 90% of the tested sample.


Jabba considers the contamination ratio completely irrelevant to the discussion. From his point of view, our insisting that he understand that ratio is evidence of our trying to muddy the waters because we have no real evidence. If we asked him to prove that Fleury-Lemberg was left-handed, Jabba would consider that request no less or no more absurd than our asking for the contamination ratio.


When Jabba says the C14 could be wrong for some unknown reason, he is not trying to tap dance the C14 out of the discussion. From his perspective he is being polite to us by suggesting an unknown factor. He considers our position irrationally biased. By suggesting an unknown reason, he is giving us an excuse to allow us to defend our irrationality.

If the authenticity of the Shroud requires the Vatican's textile experts to be so incompetent as to not look at both sides of the cloth where the earlier sample was taken from, then the only conclusion that Jabba can draw is that these textile experts really were that incompetent.

There is no analogy that will make him surrender even one iota of his faith in the Shroud.

There is no formal logic that will make him surrender even one iota of his faith in the Shroud.

There is no scientific evidence that will make him surrender even one iota of his faith in the Shroud.

There is no discussion of chain of evidence,
There is no explanation of logical fallacies,
There is no examination of claimant's credentials
There is no structured argument
There is no modern replica
No admission,
No citation,
No quote,
No fact.

There is NOTHING that will that will make him surrender even one iota of his faith in the Shroud.​

Therefore, I request that all the posters in this thread stop pretending that anything will weaken even the tiniest of Jabba's claims related to the Shroud's authenticity. It is impossible to get Jabba to change his mind on any aspect of the Shroud. Stop. Period. End of story.

Everything that could possibly be said has already been said several times. It is time to stop the insanity. Let this thread die.


I know this might sound like crazy talk to many JREFers, but sometimes it is OK to let someone who is completely wrong have the last word in an internet forum thread. Just let it go. Let this thread die.

You folks are talking to a guy that believes that the Vatican really does know that the Shroud is authentic and the Vatican might be close to publicly admitting the Shroud's authenticity. Is this the guy you want to argue with? Let this thread die.



ETA: see 2271.

 

[pgwenthold]

Jabba has read several assertions about the provenance of the Shroud and the non-reproducable nature of the Shroud.

Interestingly, last week we (at least, those honestly discussing the issue) saw progress on the "non-reproducable" aspect. Someone noted how one of the problems the Catholic Church has with the shroud is that the image was bright and shiny in 1400, and has faded drastically since then. I pointed out that this is a problem for the "non-reproducable" argument, because it means that we shouldn't be trying to reproduce the image as it exists now, but as it existed 700 years ago. However, we don't actually know, outside of vague descriptions, what it really looked like back then.

I have not seen Jabba address this point, as it renders the question of reproducibility generally meaningless. But it shows that we are actually trying to engage him on his own terms in addition to the things that he refuses to consider.

 

[Dinwar]

Many of you believe that getting Jabba to understand the contamination ratio is crucial. You believe that if he realizes how unlikely it is for three different labs to ignore that amount of dirt, then he will have to accept the C14 dating as true - or at the very least take one step closer to being true. You are grossly mistaken.

I always love it when people tell me what I think. It's fun to count all the ways they're wrong.

Simply put, your analysis of this particular line of reasoning (the C14 contamination) is completely off-base, for numerous reasons. First, I'm doing this primarily for the peanut gallery--the people who find this thread via Google deserve to have a better discussion than Jabba talking to himself on yet another forum. I'm also doing this to make Jabba's incompetance as a C14 expert crystal clear. I never expected him to actually do the math. It would be insane to think Jabba would get to the point where your take on our motives would make sense--he has shown no ability to address direct questions or specific topics, after all. My intent was to prove his incompetance to any passer-by. If he actually surprised me and did the work, hey, cool! We can move the conversation forward! But either way one goal of mine is accomplished.

Second, you've only seen the first in a series of questions I intend(ed) to ask. The next step wasn't to point and laugh and say "See? See? That's too much! The shroud is fake! MWAHAHAHA!!!!!!" Give me some more credit than that. The next step would be to ask Jabba to determine (or reference someone who's determined) where the contamination came from, or at least a means to test for the presence of such contamination. The exact volume is irrelevant--I've actually seen samples that were more contamination than "sample" (groundwater sampling at old chemical plants in the South; fun times), so I know it's possible. The key is to make Jabba, and shroudies in general, provide specific, testable predictions. Then, we test them.

It's not the ratio that's important here--though if someone is incapable of calculating it that's sufficient to show their incompetance in evaluating C14 data. Jabba has made a prediction. Fine. I'm taking him at his word, and dragging him kicking and screaming through the thought process required by science.

 

[Aepervius]

Many of you believe that getting Jabba to understand the contamination ratio is crucial. You believe that if he realizes how unlikely it is for three different labs to ignore that amount of dirt, then he will have to accept the C14 dating as true - or at the very least take one step closer to being true. You are grossly mistaken.

No, not at all. I don't believe for a second Jabba will stop believing, he will simply rationalize away any problem with his claim of authenticity with more made up "forthcoming evidence" or already-1000-time-debunked citation.

But you see, I don't do it for Jabba. i do it for the lurker which is "on the line" , doubtting, verving, and maybe falling on the skeptical side. The same wy we aregue with creationist fully knowing none of them would stop believing in bible inerancy even if you grinded them into it.

And I do it for my Own distraction partly.

And I have a gut feeling I am not alone "not doing it for Jabba".

 

[Akhenaten]

No, not at all. I don't believe for a second Jabba will stop believing, he will simply rationalize away any problem with his claim of authenticity with more made up "forthcoming evidence" or already-1000-time-debunked citation.

But you see, I don't do it for Jabba. i do it for the lurker which is "on the line" , doubtting, verving, and maybe falling on the skeptical side. The same wy we aregue with creationist fully knowing none of them would stop believing in bible inerancy even if you grinded them into it.

And I do it for my Own distraction partly.

And I have a gut feeling I am not alone "not doing it for Jabba".

+1​

Frankly I sometimes find myself becoming quite irked by those who seem to want to insist that we all have some noble purpose behind what we post.

 

[Akhenaten]

Everything that could possibly be said has already been said several times. It is time to stop the insanity. Let this thread die.

I know this might sound like crazy talk to many JREFers, but sometimes it is OK to let someone who is completely wrong have the last word in an internet forum thread. Just let it go. Let this thread die.

You folks are talking to a guy that believes that the Vatican really does know that the Shroud is authentic and the Vatican might be close to publicly admitting the Shroud's authenticity. Is this the guy you want to argue with? Let this thread die.

Much easier​