Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Bad vibe]

I wouldn't put to much stock in "serum stains" paint is basically a pigment suspended in a medium and when soaked into a cloth the pigment tends to fix (being particles) while the base can soak a larger area I've seen this as a Decorator admittedly with modern paints. I'm no scientist but that whole serum arguement sounds like bs to me. I'm sure you could achieve a similar affect with a particle suspension and blotting paper. And whilst wet yes as an artist you could see it.
I don't get why the image being painted would have to leave brush marks? if the fabric or paper is very absorbant or the paint to thick then maybe. You don't really see many on silk paintings unless intentional.

 

[Garrette]

I wouldn't put to much stock in "serum stains" paint is basically a pigment suspended in a medium and when soaked into a cloth the pigment tends to fix (being particles) while the base can soak a larger area I've seen this as a Decorator admittedly with modern paints. I'm no scientist but that whole serum arguement sounds like bs to me. --snip--

Particulary since the serum was not chemically identified; it was "identified" through photographs and a microscope, the latter second-hand, iirc.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

Jabba:
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.

#4 doesn't follow. We're talking the MIDDLE AGES here, Jabba--a time period that's infamous for its brutality. I mean yeah, they weren't curcifying people every day, but Christians other than Jesus have been crucified.

#4 is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Blood on the shroud--even blood matching the descriptions of Christ's wounds in the Bible--does not prove that the shroud is Jesus' burial cloth. All it proves is that someone recieved the wounds Christ is said to have recieved. And considering this is the most widely known torture ON THE PLANET, this is hardly an unlikely situation...

Dinwar,

- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong.
- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...

- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.
- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.
- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...
- I'll leave it at that for now.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Getting past the experts

- Can anyone point me to what the experts actually did re including that corner in their various examinations of the Shroud? (Before the cutting, before the conservation, whenever.)
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...

This is nothing more than Argument from Personal Incredulity. And your assessment is not based on data, but on your own need to see the shroud as ancient, whatever the data say.

- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...

Doesn't invalidate the idea, though.

- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.

First, this is a lie. It's been proven in this thread that 1) we CAN reproduce the image, and 2) the image on the shroud today isn't what needs to be reproduced--the 14th century bright and colorful image is.

Second, this isn't that tricky. We do it all the time.

- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.

The reason you can say this is the reason that anyone who wanted to could reproduce the image: IT IS WRITTEN DOWN. ANY literate person in the Middle Ages could have read the description and gone "Hey, I know how to do that!"

- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...

You are aware that dying cloth was an art perfected long before the Middle Ages, right? I mean, you seem to think that this is somehow special. It's not--I've seen far more detaild woven tapestries.

- I'll leave it at that for now.

You've still got nothing. The C14 data proves it's from the 14th century, and your arguments against it amount to "I don't want to believe it, so I'm going to ignore all the data".

 

[Garrette]

Jabba,

One of the things you could do to help your credibility is to actually read the responses in total and tailor your own comments to what people have said, acknowledging when they present strong counterarguments.

Jabba:
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.Dinwar,

- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong.

It most certainly and strenuously does not, for exactly the reasons that have been repeatedly put forth. "Prove" means that the alternatives have been ruled out. "Prove" within a non-mathematical sense means that the proven scenario is the most likely. Have you ever tried Occam's Razor?

Scenario 1: The C14 dating is correct:
Assumptions Required: Experts acted expertly.

Scenario 2: The C14 dating is incorrect:
Assumptions Required:

1. A patch that has exactly zero evidence of existing exists.

2. Every relevant expert examining the shroud overlooked said patch.

3. The approved, documented work of three independent labs was done not only incorrectly, but identically incorrectly.

4. Undocumented, unprovenanced kitchen experiments conflicting with the experimenter's own previous conclusions trump the documented work of three independent labs.

5. The non-matching stereoscopic image on the shroud doesn't matter.

6. The similarity of the image with 14th century artistic style is coincidental.

7. The contemporary evidence admitting the hoax is fraudulent.

8. The documented scientific work of McCrone is incorrect, though no one can show how.

9. The conclusions regarding blood serum are correct though derived solely from photographs and microscopic views and not from actual chemical analysis trump the documented work of McCrone.

10. The bible itself is wrong in its description of the burial clothS (the headpiece is definitively mentioned as being separate).

11. Things known to have happened repeatedly even to the present day (voluntary crucifixion, forgery, fraud, misrepresentation) are less likely than that which has never been shown (resurrection, spontaneous transfer of bodily image to a covering cloth).

I'm sure there are more, but that's a start.

- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...

See above comments.

- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...

That's because on the hoax side the argument ends with the C14 dating. On the authenticity side no one wants to mention it because it would add another in the pouch full of nails in the shroud's coffin.

- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint

He did. The imprint is there. Your own linked pdf (pro-authenticity by the way) gave an example that it claimed was similar to the shroud, and it did it simply by washing the wounds repeatedly and applying the cloth. Do you assert that this is beyond a 14th century artist?

-- which modern science still can't do

Lies.

(we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work),

Only if you show the C14 dating to be wrong, and even then you would lose the argument. Go back and read what has been repeatedly said about no one knowing what the shroud actually looked like in the 14th century. It's a significant point.

and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.

Try reading your own links. As I mentioned, the pdf you yourself linked to describes how to do it to their satisfaction using nothing but water and cloth.

- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.

1. You have exactly zero idea how the body would look.

2. Whatever idea you have comes from exactly the same source material that would be readily availble to the hoaxer.

- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...

You think expert art was beyond an expert artist?

- I'll leave it at that for now.

You leave it exactly where it was: with the evidence entirely in favor of 14th century hoax and not at all in favor of authenticity.

I ask two things of you, please, Jabba:

1. Respond to my comments specifically.

2. Respond to earlier assertions about your intended audience. I think I know that we are not your audience--that you present your comments here only to gain credibility on pro-shroud forums, but it would be refreshing to hear you admit it.

 

[Garrette]

- Can anyone point me to what the experts actually did re including that corner in their various examinations of the Shroud? (Before the cutting, before the conservation, whenever.)
--- Jabba

And again, it is astounding that someone with 20 years invested in this research, and several recent months on this thread discussing exactly that, cannot find this information on his own.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba:
1) The blood was not painted on.

It is very annoying and dishonest to use a disputed claim as if it was a fact, in other parts of the debate. It is not proven to be blood at all. That is just one of the many disputed claims.

2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.

Only if it is actually blood, and no other method was used. However, other methods have been suggested here.

So now you build on two disputed claims.

3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.

Only if it is actually blood, and real wounds were used, but the person did not have to be actually crucified; similar but less serious wounds could easily be used to produce the stains.

So now you build in three disputed claims.

4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.

The carbon dating is approximately 99.9% certain (within a century).

- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do

Unsuppported claim. Nobody has shown how it could be done, but then 'modern science' generally has more important things to do. To duplicate it you need access to the shroud to analyze and compare. How many who have had that, have had the proper scientific skills, AND the motivation to duplicate it?

- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.

That is a uniquely silly argument! Nobodt knows how Jesus would look, so you cannot say if the shroud looks like him.

- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...

Almost as silly. Nobody knows how Jesu's blood-stains looked in reality.

Jabba, you are talking about a person we cannot even prove has existed.

Hans
- I'll leave it at that for now.

--- Jabba[/quote]

 

[Steve]

[/I]

That is a uniquely silly argument! Nobodt knows how Jesus would look, so you cannot say if the shroud looks like him.

This is true. However a man looking like the image depicted on the shroud would certainly stand out among the Jewish population of first century Palestine.

 

[Dinwar]

That is a uniquely silly argument! Nobodt knows how Jesus would look, so you cannot say if the shroud looks like him.

I should clarify: When I said that the description was widely available, I meant that any literate person in the 14th century had access to the description that Jabba is forced to use (there being no other)--so the parts that Jabba can possibly recognize as being in the Bible were also readily available to any 14th century fraudster. The parts that no one knows about are, obviously, unknown.

Let me put it simply: Jabba and the perpetrator of the fraud have the same source to go off of, so OF COURSE the perpetrator will make something Jabba sees as recognizably Jesus. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[Akhenaten]

- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong.

"Seems to prove" is a meaningless phrase, and will remain so no matter how many times you repeat it.

- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...

Your estimation of likelihoood has absolutely no bearing on the possibility of one explanation or another being valid.

- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...

Be the first on your block to write one!

It'll be at least as believable as anything else you've written. Probably a lot more so, come to think of it.

- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.

This is completely false.

- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.

And the games of Quidditch portrayed in the Harry Potter movies seem spot on faithful to how the games in the books would look.

It's almost as if the creators of the movies used the books as a guide, isn't it?

- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...

With a tiny little scythe?

- I'll leave it at that for now.

A couple of steps behind where you started. Same as with every other post.

 

[Alex Cured]

And Dinwar, MRC_Hans and especially Garrette demolish the utter nonsense of the blood "argument".

Now Jabba will switch back to "threads" or "uncertainty-doubt" or some other sidetrack for a while -- but never the crux (sorry) of the matter, ¹⁴C -- before returning once more to "blood" as though it had never even been mentioned before never mind utterly refuted.

#2570 posts and counting ...

 

[Akhenaten]

- Can anyone point me to what the experts actually did re including that corner in their various examinations of the Shroud? (Before the cutting, before the conservation, whenever.)
--- Jabba

4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…

What does the rest of the document from which you gleaned the above information say about it?

 

[IanS]

Jabba:
1) The blood was not painted on.
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.
3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.
4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.Dinwar,

- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong.


-

As someone else just pointed out, you don’t seem to read what has been said to you, as if totally ignoring explanations as to why your claims are untrue.

However, once more -

Jabba:
1) The blood was not painted on.

You do not even know that the red marks are blood (let alone 2000 year old blood), and yet you are leaping ahead to claim the marks could not have been painted on to the cloth.

You have no evidence at all to say that the red marks were not applied to the cloth by an artist/faker.

Jabba:
2) A real, tortured and crucified human being was involved.

You have no evidence of that whatsoever. Not a single shred.

You are just fishing wild claims out of thin air.

3) Then, if the Shroud is somehow a forgery, and was forged within the time frame indicated by the carbon dating, someone had to be deliberately crucified for a piece of art and by an artist that knew how to produce the imprint.

Well that's adding a second leap of faith based entirely on a 1st leap of un-evidenced faith lol!

This is becoming hilarious. First you make the crazy and un-evidenced claim that a tortured human had to be responsible for the image. Then you jump to the conclusion that the C14 must be wrong because it would have needed someone to be deliberately crucified in the 12th century!

The image does not need anyone to be crucified. And there is no evidence of that at all.

You are making this up lol. Just as your fellow shroud fanatics are making up all the same sort of preposterous faith claims about the shroud.

4) In other words -- surely, the carbon dating is wrong.

Well that's now a 3rd layer of leaping faith, piled on top of the previous two layers!

If it could be shown that the shroud image really was of a dead man who had been crucified, then that would be headline news in every newspaper, radio and TV station all around the world. But on the contrary, no such news has ever appeared, has it!

Why do you think that is? Just to save you scratching your head - the answer is that the whole idea is nothing more than yet another barking mad claim from religious fanatics who believe the cloth must be a holy relic of Jesus.

By the way, in contrast to your totally empty claims, when the C14 results were announced, that was headline news around the world.

This is all becoming rather sad .

 

[pakeha]

...

- It also seems to prove that the carbon dating is wrong.
- Certainly, it's possible that someone would be deliberately crucified, in the 14th century, in the manner that Jesus was crucified, so as to produce a monetarily valuable artifact. But to me, as you might expect, that seems highly unlikely...

- For one thing -- as far as I know -- such an explanation has never been suggested by any publication about the Shroud...
- For another thing, the "artist" would have had to know how to produce the imprint -- which modern science still can't do (we will need to talk about why the various claims of duplication don't work), and be able to produce such an imprint in the 14th century using a dead body.
- For another, the detail seems spot on faithful to how the body of the Biblical Jesus would look.
- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...
- I'll leave it at that for now. ...

Just out of curiosity, has everyone looked over the links given in the OP of the amazing things that can be 'seen' in the TS?
All these arguments are simply flights of imagination, given that the TS is dated to the 14th century.

- Can anyone point me to what the experts actually did re including that corner in their various examinations of the Shroud? (Before the cutting, before the conservation, whenever.) ...

Whatever they were doing, it was under the direct supervision of the archbishop of Turin.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Dear, sweet, waltzing zombie Jesus on a biscuit-bicycle! How is this thread still going!? It seemed utterly dead when I last looked at it some 30 pages ago.

I would like to imaging that this is because Jabba has extracted a digit and started to actually engage in the dialogue that he spent so long setting up. I suspect I am fooling myself.

So - have I missed anything in the last half-a-thread?

 

[Akhenaten]

I would like to imaging that this is because Jabba has extracted a digit and started to actually engage in the dialogue that he spent so long setting up. I suspect I am fooling myself.

​

So - have I missed anything in the last half-a-thread?

​

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So - have I missed anything in the last half-a-thread?

Jabba has promised that he'll post something soon, just as soon as he has time to corral his resources.

 

[tsig]

Jabba has promised that he'll post something soon, just as soon as he has time to corral his resources.

He's had time enough to corral them, break them to ride and win a steeplechase with them.

 

[pgwenthold]

Is it worth mentioning again that the image on the shroud is COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT with what you would get if you laid a person, crucified or not, on it, or, conversely, if you laid a cloth on top of a person, crucified or not?

I don't care if the people in the Middle Ages knew about crucifixion methods of 0 BCE, a crucified body won't give you the image that is on the shroud, regardless of when it was made.

Hence, the shroud cannot be a burial cloth for someone who was crucified.

ETA: The ONLY way you can explain it is to invoke a miracle, and once you go there, then this whole discussion goes out the window. How do you explain the C14 results? It's a miracle. QED.