Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

The Blood

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.

You can plan what you like, but the Forum actually works on the basis that anyone is free to respond to any post they like.

- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 dating isn't a sub-issue. It's the bottom line.

And whether you demonstrate that the image is made of bluuuurd or not doesn't really make any difference - that it's on a 700-year-old piece of cloth is pretty much all that counts.

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

It doesn't matter one way or the other.

 

[pakeha]

...
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

Jabba, have you had some sort of memory lapse?
Have you forgotten the extensive discussion you had on this very subject at the atheist forum?
Do you really want me to start posting up the exchanges you had here?

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

Jabba, does this even matter?
Except, of course in the context of a medieval artifact.
Please don't imagine you can divert the discussion away from the 'invisible' patching and the C14 dating.
Please live up to your earlier promise to rebut the impossibility of the 'invisible' patching.

 

[Gao]

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

--- Jabba

What relevance does this have to the central question about the authenticity of the shroud? Body or not, paint or blood, it's quite clearly a 14th century fake, and you have yet to present any evidence that indicates otherwise.

 

[IanS]

... the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just ....

going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 is not a "sub" issue. It's the issue.

Why haven't you been able to find any independent science papers disputing the C14?

There's absolutely no point discussing any blood if the C14 dates are right. And if you think the C14 dates are wrong, then why have you failed to find any genuine independent scientist who has ever disputed those dates?

It's no use quoting shroud Christian believers who think the C14 dates are wrong. That's about as much use as asking Gerry Falwell and Kent Hovind if they have evidence for God.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

From the blog:

- I appreciate your responses (very interesting information) and will salt them away for future use, but it’s starting to look like we don’t have a good answer to the apparent similarity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth — which seems like strong evidence against the invisible re-weave hypothesis.
- Any suggestions?

The obvious suggestion, which you keep ignoring, is that the reason why the two samples might be similar is because they're from the same cloth.

- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 dating is not a sub-issue. It is the key issue. If the C14 dating is not wrong (and you have admitted it is not), and if there was no patch (and you have agreed that you cannot present any counter-arguments to the ones put to you here, nor can you present any argument for how such a thing could even be possible), then the Shroud is not as old as you would like to think it is. It's that simple.

Of course you want to talk about something else. Continuing to discuss the C14 dating can only lead you to the conclusion that you're wrong about the age of the Shroud, and that's something you don't want to conclude. But the facts are the facts, not what you, I, or anybody else would wish them to be. No amount of changing the subject is going to change the facts.

If you cannot prove that the C14 dating is wrong, or that the material tested wasn't a patch, then you have no case whatsoever. Anything else you say is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Giordano]

Pakeha,
- Show us exactly where something I said back in that atheist forum disagrees with what I'm saying over here. Show us exactly where and how I have been dis-ingenuous.
--- Jabba

You are being disingenuous in your argument because you know from prior exchanges in this thread that the C 14 evidence indicates that, even if it is real blood, it cannot be 1st century blood, and therefore the blood " evidence" is irrelevant to the S of T being the burial cloth of Christ.

 

[Dinwar]

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

No. You've thus far presented no evidence that it was so.

- I appreciate your responses (very interesting information) and will salt them away for future use, but it’s starting to look like we don’t have a good answer to the apparent similarity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth — which seems like strong evidence against the invisible re-weave hypothesis.
- Any suggestions?

Yes: the cloth IS HOMOGENOUS. It was all weaved at the same time, and there IS NO PATCH.

 

[Loss Leader]

Twelve posts have been moved to AAH. Most were not rude, but simply off-topic. Please remember that this thread is for the discussion of the Shroud of Turin, not the discussion of the discussion of the Shroud. Posts regarding people's behavior on other forums or their motives for posting are not appropriate to the topic. Thank you all for your courtesies.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[IanS]

If you cannot prove that the C14 dating is wrong, or that the material tested wasn't a patch, then you have no case whatsoever. Anything else you say is utterly irrelevant.

Well that's really the bottom line here.

It's why I suggested to Jabba 40 pages back, that he would do better to simply accept that the C14 dates are likely to be correct. Then if he want's to discuss other issues like blood he can do that ... but not on the basis that the C14 dates are somehow swept under the carpet of Christian faith.

Otherwise, if he wants to discuss blood as evidence of a 1st century burial cloth of Jesus, then people here are always going to stop him and bring him back to the fact that he is unable to find even one genuine independent research paper disputing the 13th-14th cent. date ... a date which coincidentally just happens to be the same as the date when the shroud is first known to have appeared.

 

[pakeha]

¡Qué va, abaddon!
There's plenty to discuss here- like how and why the TS is dated to the 14th century!

Off to re-read the OP again.

 

[pakeha]

What a trip.

...
Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page ...

The rock in Manitoba was a real inspiration.
Moses petting a ram, Baby Jesus waving his little arm freed from the swaddling, Christ with a mandolin...
All with a soundtrack which will give me night-mares for years.
Years.

 

[Jabba]

My Current Plan

Dave,

- I'm still looking around for a better answer to the trace element argument, but so far, I haven't found any...
- So far, the best I can do is the same as you suggested -- i.e., we can't seem to get the figures re the trace elements on the Raes sample, and consequently, don't really know how similar the readings between them and the larger Shroud are. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the similarity isn't all that unexpected -- even if one set is from 1st century Palestine and the other is from 14th century France.
- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely...

The issue many of us have with this statement is that this isn't a conclusion for you, it's an assumption. You do not appear to have arived at this due to consideration of the data--you started with this assumption, and are looking for ways to prove it. That "harder place" isn't the data, but your own willful refusal to accept that your assumption may be wrong.

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

We've already disproven this. I've quoted several experts in exactly the types of patches you say would have been used, and they ALL say that these patches are good enough to make a garment look good, but are anything but invisible. No amount of help you can get will change that.

 

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Miracle of the Shroud?

It seems more like making fun of the Shroud.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode_shroud_turin.htm

 

[davefoc]

Dave,

- I'm still looking around for a better answer to the trace element argument, but so far, I haven't found any...
- So far, the best I can do is the same as you suggested -- i.e., we can't seem to get the figures re the trace elements on the Raes sample, and consequently, don't really know how similar the readings between them and the larger Shroud are. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the similarity isn't all that unexpected -- even if one set is from 1st century Palestine and the other is from 14th century France.
- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

I'm a little surprised that you have spent this much effort on this piece of evidence. I have serious doubts about whether the X-ray fluorescence testing of the Raes threads was actually done. I think it is possible that Rogers/Schwalbe just assumed it had been done but they might have been wrong. Without a paper that documents the testing I don't see much to discuss.

There is an issue of credibility in that Rogers seems to be making conflicting claims in two different papers. I'm not too enthused about that line of argument. Rogers/Schwalbe could have made a mistake here and Rogers could be right some place else.

Of course, because I think this particular argument doesn't cut very strongly for or against authenticity doesn't mean that I have a similar view of other arguments related to the viability of the invisible patch theory. As I've mentioned previously, I believe that the case against the invisible patch theory is overwhelming. I just don't think this particular argument is particularly solid given that the evidence that underlies it has not been produced in this thread.

 

[pakeha]

... but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place"). ...

Could you explain the above, please?
It makes no sense at all.
What is the 'overall evidence' more compelling than the C14 dating?

And while we're waiting, from the OP's link:
http://www.missionoftheshroud.com/miracle-photos/slideshow-movies/Shroud/Shroud.html

 

[Jabba]

Getting past the experts

Dave,
- Do you have access to what the various experts did (before the cutting, during the dating process and/or during the conservation efforts of 2002) in order to conclude that there was no patch in the carbon dating sample?
--- Jabba

 

[Marduk]

- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

got something here which should help you find all the missing evidence
grab some of these
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50-Black-...Celebrations_Occasions_ET&hash=item29fd17de55

 

[Jabba]

Evidence conflicting with the C14 results

...What is the 'overall evidence' more compelling than the C14 dating?...

Pakeha,
- There's a lot of evidence that conflicts with the results of the dating.
- I would start with the blood evidence. The blood evidence appears to require that the Shroud covered an actual crucified body that was crucified in a manner entirely consistent with Roman crucifixions of the first century and, in particular, with the crucifixion of the Biblical Jesus.
- I will try to start presenting the specific evidence as soon as I've done what I can towards explaining how a patch could have gotten past the experts.

--- Jabba