Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba
- 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...
Dinwar,
- I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
--- Jabba

Artefact making was a BOOMING trade in the middle age. Only you expect it to be unlikely due to your damn incredulity and complete utter absence of knowledge of the thematic.

 

[Aepervius]

Zoo,
- You think much too highly of your own objectivity...
--- Jabba

That's OK we don't think much of yours, so that make an average go to "normal" .

 

[Aepervius]

I don't understand why it would be necessary to use a dead body. If the image has been duplicated, it matters not whether there was a dead body being used.

Second, I actually agree with you. I don't accept claims that the image on the shroud has been duplicated. Because that is because of Dinwar's point #2 - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL IMAGE LOOKED LIKE, so it is impossible to duplicate it. The only way we could duplicate the image on the shroud NOW would be to allow at least 500 years, because all reports are that the image on the shroud is a result of an original image and at least 500 years of time.

So no, I don't agree that we have reproduced the image on the shroud.

However, before getting excited, note that since we don't know what the original image looked like, you cannot claim that it cannot be reproduced. Shoot, it could be trivially easy, as far as we know. You just need some paint, cloth, and 500 years...

Your point and dinwar's is only correct as far as the pigment goes. But for the painting technic, we do not ened to look at the pigment evolution, only if the tstroke or technic can reproduce the whole image geometrical structure. And it does. We can reproduce that part. As for the unknown, they are unknown and therefore can't be argued any way. Your argument would be like we can't know the technic behind the lasco painting because we don't know how it looked like 20000 year ago. That's stupid, sorry. We know the *technic* used for the stroke, we might not know the pigment. (actually in that precise case we do know too but that is beside the point).

Therefore as far as it goes, the technic was reproduced, and reproduce the stroke and geometrical feel of the shroud. Therefore saying "it was not reproduced" as jabba said is a downright ignorance or a lie.

 

[Aepervius]

Zoo,
- No. You just proved your own bias by insisting that there is no reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

No he is right. On the science point of view there is no reasonable doubt. The only doubt are from believer which muck up ignorance, incredulity, and other various kind of misudnerstanding of the involved saicence and parameter or facts. Those are not *reasonable doubt* those are faith based belief interjection. Naturally as one of the believer, jsut like creationist arguying for the great flood, you will not understand the point being made. it is quite clear for anybody impartial reading this thread.

 

[Dinwar]

I'd take it even further. The bible clearly describes a headcloth, which means that the head should not show up. How can it do that?

I pointed that out like 20 or 30 pages ago. Still hasn't been addressed.

Jabba, here's the deal: If this is the burial shroud of Christ THE BIBLE IS WRONG.

ETA: Now that I think of it this means either

A: The shroud is fake

OR B: The shroud is real, jebus was not really dead and the resurrection is fake.

Makes sense. "We're going to brutally torture you for a while. However, if you live you'll be revered as a god."

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba:
- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...
Dinwar,
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
--- Jabba

No YOU are using that as an hypotheses discarding the other without evidence. AFAIK the working hypotheses is that it is a painting, alone geomeetric deformation is enough to discard the dead body hypotheses.

If you do not understand geometric deformation, do this experiment : take a cheap doll, put some paint on it, then put a scarf on it. Then examine the scarf on a flat surface. The image will be deformed geometrically around the edge of the "doll" image (face or body side).

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar,
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.

YOU are working from that hypothesis. I'm not--I'm expecting you to provide evidence for such a claim. Until you do, you don't have a hypothesis, you have a WAG.

And as I and others have pointed out innumerable times now, such an event is just as possible in the 14th century as in the 1st century. Dead bodies weren't uncommon at either time.

 

[Tinyal]

Zoo,
- No. You just proved your own bias by insisting that there is no reasonable doubt.
--- Jabba

Correct, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt - none, nada, zip, zero. As long as the extremely strong Carbon 14 data stands, anything else shroudies claim is just wishful thinking (or outright lies told to themselves and others to prop up their jezus beliefs).

I've been following this thread from the beginning. At first I was fairly neutral, willing to swing either way depending on the evidence. But once I was presented with the C14, nothing else matters.

It's a middle ages (dark ages?) fake, and people like jabba are just wasting their lives away believing otherwise. Of course, I say the same thing about all religious believers, but that's their problem - not mine.

Reading many of jabba's posts makes me somewhat sad, it's a pity. I don't waste much more time on it than that, as where I am in life in this here USA, the majority of people I meet are wasting their lives believing in xian fantasies

 

[pakeha]

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. ...

Thanks for that information.
It just confirms that we see what we want to see in the TS.
One of the links in the Op mentions you can actually see Father Christmas in the TS!

- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
--- Jabba

This is where we come back to the difference between a courtroom debate and a discussion of scientific data.

We'll want the sources for these claims, Jabba.
If the body was washed, what makes you think it would have continued to ooze blood so many hours later?

- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body. ..

That isn't the hypothesis we're working from,.

...
Second, I'm actually qualified to discuss radiometric dating methods. I'm not giving a mere opinion here, but an expert opinion. ...

Odd how Jabba never recognises Dinwar's creds.

Yes, all of the gospel accounts of the burial describe it as having been carried out in accordance with the Jewish customs of the day, which most definitely involve a separate head-cloth. The reason for this head-cloth was to enable folks who weren't actually dead to be able to blow the cloth off and call for help if they woke up in the tomb. Measures like this to guard against premature burial were quite common in antiquity and also include revisiting the tomb after three days to make sure the dear departed isn't a bit less departed than was at first suspected (although for some reason the various people who were described as coming to check up on the late Jesus turned up a day-and-a-half early). ...

Thanks for that information.

 

[IanS]

... the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds.

That may be your preferred belief, but few if any here have agreed that they believe that to be their "working hypothesis".

I don't know if you know the answer to this, but - how many burial cloths throughout history have been subsequently found to bear an image of the body?

Are there any known examples of that?

 

[pgwenthold]

That may be your preferred belief, but few if any here have agreed that they believe that to be their "working hypothesis".

Hey, I entertained his hypothesis, and treated it to the type of examination that any hypothesis deserves. I used the hypothesis to make a prediction about what should be observed, and compared it to what is actually observed.

The actual observation was inconsistent with the prediction based on the hypothesis, so the hypothesis was rejected. Hence, it is not a "working" hypothesis, it is a falsified hypothesis.

It took less space to falsify it than it did to write this all out.

 

[Dinwar]

It's a middle ages (dark ages?) fake,

My understanding is that the Dark Ages (a term most don't use anymore) ended around 1100 AD. Of course, the exact date depends on your geography--technically speaking, the Roman Empire lasted into the 20th century.

 

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by Jabba
- I guess that my main claim here is that skeptics have needs also, and that these needs are much more effective than skeptics generally think that they are.
--- Jabba

you do realise this is an admission that you need the shroud to be genuine ("...skeptics have needs also...")

 

[Alex Cured]

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

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...Doesn't invalidate the idea, though...

- No. But it is significant evidence against the idea. I don't think that Joe Nickell has ever brought up the possibility -- and, I know that McCrone didn't. If either had considered such to be a reasonable possibility, I assume they would have pointed us to it.
--- Jabba

the idea that something you don't agree with can be dismissed because it's novel seems ... flawed

 

[Alex Cured]

Jabba:
- 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.
Dinwar,
- As far as I can tell, you guys just claim that it has been duplicated. Show me where you have proven that it has.
- And further, show me where they've used a dead body to do it.
--- Jabba

The shroud is not genuine unless a complete description of how it might have been faked can be produced

The ¹⁴C analysis shows it's fake

 

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
There is nothing to discuss. We don't know what the original image looked like. Therefore, you cannot claim that we can't reproduce the image.

pgwenthold,
- Another interesting point to discuss.
--- Jabba

"there is nothing to discuss ..."

"- Another interesting point to discuss."

Wow.

 

[Alex Cured]

Jabba:
- For another, the artist would have to figure out how to reap such detailed stains...
Dinwar,
- If I understand what you're saying, you're forgetting the hypothesis we're working from -- that the figure on the Shroud is an imprint of the corpse of a real man with real blood coming from real wounds. And, to get such detail of these wounds would seem to be impossible if the "artist" had to lift the Shroud off the body.
--- Jabba

That's your assertion backed by ... nothing but hearsay.

 

[Alex Cured]

Why do you so desperately need this shroud to be real? Is your whole faith suddenly invalidated if this shroud is fake?

I actually asked Jabba this months back.

It seems like his position isn't just bad science, but bad "christianity" too

 

[Alex Cured]

Zoo,
- You seem to be saying that the carbon dating has to be correct -- that there is no reasonable doubt here. I claim that only a bias can dismiss reasonable doubt in this situation.
--- Jabba

If the ¹⁴C analysis had returned "1st Century" you would be greeting such a comment as you make here, with contempt.

There is no reasonable doubt here. There is only unreasonable doubt.

 

[davefoc]

Dave,

...
- I do take issue with your last sentence -- I accept that it has been reasonably argued that the patch theory is false, but I don't accept (yet) that it has been "shown" to be false.

...

--- Jabba

Based on the philosophical notion that nothing is knowable to an absolute certainty then I agree, the invisible patch theory has not been shown to be false. But then, based on a criteria where absolute certainty is required, we don't know that the shroud exists either.

But the invisible patch theory has been shown to be false based on a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria or even a practical certainty criteria. The evidence is overwhelming that an invisible patch was not made to the area of the shroud sampled for C14 testing. Reasonably enough people are routinely convicted of crimes where the certainty of their guilt does not equal the level of certainty that it is knowable that the shroud invisible patch theory is false.

You might take note of the fact that your only response to the ten reasons why the invisible patch theory is false put forth earlier has been to ask whether the textile expert used a microscope to examine the shroud when she did the restoration in 2002. Whether she used a microscope or not to examine the shroud her claim is that a patch to the shroud could not have been made that was not visible to the naked eye of an expert such as herself and she categorically states that no such patch was visible to her. She also made the claim that the individual most responsible for selecting the area of the patch repeatedly told her that he was sure that the C14 sample area did not contain a patch before his death. You might also take note of the fact that University of Arizona published microscopic images of a shroud sample that was provided to them for C14 testing and these were entirely consistent with the rest of the shroud.

Somebody might have linked to this before, but this is a rather nice tool for examining areas of the shroud in detail:

http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml

One could use this tool to zoom in on the patch area and examine the continuity of the density banding that passes through the C14 sample area, if one was interested.

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-scourge-marks-surely-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

The author makes a few interesting points that provides daunting evidence against the notion that the "scourge marks" are scourge marks:
1. The claim in that the scourge marks were produced by Roman flagrum which was a whip that had little balls attached to the end of the whip cords. The portion of the whip cord between the little balls is allegedly visible in the shroud image but what is missing is any sign of the whip cord itself that is closer to the handle part of the whip than where the balls are. Somehow the person allegedly doing the whipping causes the end of the whip (including the balls and the whip cord between them) to touch the body of the victim without ever leaving an impression of the whip cord that lies nearer the handle than where the balls are attached.

2. His most devastating argument that the "scourge marks" are not scourge marks is his observation that the "scourge marks" lie on the body and and across the edge of the arms. This would only be possible if the victim held his arms the way they are shown in the shroud image while he was being whipped. Even then because the arms are not in the same plane as the chest the possibility of making "scourge marks" like those in the shroud is essentially zero.

I wondered about a few other things about these "scourge marks". Is the theory that Jesus was whipped first and then crucified? Why doesn't the stake block some of the scourge marks on the back?

Where was the guy standing that was doing all this whipping? There are horizontal "scourge marks" on the lower part of the legs and the upper torso. Was he climbing a ladder to make the upper horizontal "scourge marks" or was his victim being raised and lowered so he could thoroughly cover the body with horizontal "scourge marks"?

ETA: I assume that this article has been linked to before but I thought it was good enough that linking to it again might be a good idea:
http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html

The article deals with a variety of issues, but in particular it deals with the pollen issue. It provides not only excellent evidence that the pollen found on the shroud is not evidence of a Palestinian origin it also provides good evidence that Frei, the promoter of the pollen evidence theory perpetrated an intentional hoax.