Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wollery]

Jabba, I know that what I'm about to say has been said before, but you've never (to the best of my memory) directly addressed any of the posts which say it.

Everything except the C14 is irrelevant, unless and until you can show why the C14 is dubious.

And what do you suppose is the most irrelevant thing of all?

The blood.

That's right, the one thing you want to talk about at the moment is the one that has the least likelihood of making any difference.

That's because, even if you could show that the substance found on the shroud was actually blood (which you can't) there's no way to show that it isn't the blood of some poor schmuck from the 14th century. The blood is a dead-end.

Furthermore, your desire to hold a courtroom style debate is both pointless and ridiculous. It's pointless, because nobody else is ever going to go for it, and ridiculous because that isn't how science is done.

 

[IanS]

Jabba, I know that what I'm about to say has been said before, but you've never (to the best of my memory) directly addressed any of the posts which say it.

Everything except the C14 is irrelevant, unless and until you can show why the C14 is dubious.

And what do you suppose is the most irrelevant thing of all?

The blood.

That's right, the one thing you want to talk about at the moment is the one that has the least likelihood of making any difference.

That's because, even if you could show that the substance found on the shroud was actually blood (which you can't) there's no way to show that it isn't the blood of some poor schmuck from the 14th century. The blood is a dead-end.

Furthermore, your desire to hold a courtroom style debate is both pointless and ridiculous. It's pointless, because nobody else is ever going to go for it, and ridiculous because that isn't how science is done.

A courtroom style debate is also 100% unnecessary, because as you, I, and practically everyone else here has pointed out scores of times - if the C14 is correct, then any claims about blood etc. are pointless.

But after 60 pages about the C14 Jabba finally had to admit that he cannot find even one genuine scientific paper where any genuine relevant scientist has ever questioned the C14 results at all.

So, to date, after nearly 25 years since the publication, and despite all Jabba's bluff and bluster, the C14 stands entirely unopposed (except by disingenuous and/or misguided religious fanatics on shroud websites ... though they always oppose any scientific result which undermines their faith).

 

[Aepervius]

We can have a courtroom debate :

Prosecution "your honor , the 14C testing from the CSI labor shows the cloth is from the 14th century. the prosecution rest its case".
jabba "but I don't like the 14C dating, I object"
Judge "objection rejected , only scientific objection are accepted, no gut feeling".

jabba " the blood..."
prosecution "objection, there is no evidence of blood, even if there was , nothing presence or absence of blood has NO impact on dating of the cloth"
Judge "objection sustained"

jabba "invivisble mending"
prosecution "objection your honor, there is no evidence of such mending existing, and even expert says such mending is visible to expert as they are only "invisible on one side, and even if there was a mending , the fiber is taken from other part of the cloth. In other word it has again no influence on the date"
judge "objection sustained"

Jabba "it is not reproducible by human"
Prosecutor "objection your honor we have expert having a technical reproduction, and even if tehre wasn't it has AGAIN no impact on dating...."
Judge "objection sustained"

jabba "let me see , ah yes, I know a guy which know a guy which say that scientific guy is a poo poo head".
Judge getting impatient "does it has any impact on the dating"
jabba "i want to slowly lead..."
judge getting angry "witness leading is forbidden. Do you have evidence which stand on its own and are accepted by science ?"
jabbba "..... No"
judge "do you have any scientific evidence throwing the 14C dating ? if not I will be doing a summary judgement in favor of prosecution"
Jabba "but but but in TV serie it does no go like that, we can use rethoric to confuse the issue !"
judge "too bad. To all : summary judgement granted, Cloth is from 14th century".

 

[Akhenaten]

We can have a courtroom debate :

 

[Jabba]

What Next?

- I’ll try again.

- Over the past 6 months there must have been (in combination) at least 100 “responses” (questions, comments and attacks) (not counting repeats) that I have not "answered" (not responded to)…
- But then, I probably spend about 4 hours a day trying to answer your responses. That’s all the time that I can reasonably spend on this project – and, other than my family, this project is my primary investment these days.
- If you look back over my 491 posts so far, you’ll see that the vast majority (at least) are responding directly to at least one of your responses (looking quickly, I think that ALL of my posts are responding – at least indirectly -- to at least one of them).
- And then, you fuss at me for what I have left unanswered…
- Which is a problem for me.
- And, you'll probably fuss at me for this, my answer, to your fussing.

- And again, when I try to answer one response, I usually provoke at least a few more. And so, by trying to answer one response, I generally accumulate multiple new ones, and rather than gradually reduce the number of unanswered responses on my table -- by trying to answer them -- I quickly increase them instead...
- And finally, it seems to me that I have given my answers to as many of your responses as 4 hrs a day will allow...

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?

- Do you want me to spend more time on this? Do you want me to do a better job of selecting what to answer next?

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

---Jabba

 

[Garrette]

Respond to fact-based questions with fact-based statements. When facts are lacking, still respond but openly admit where the facts stop and the wishful thinking begins.

Stop trying to change the nature of scientific debate; you are simply wrong in your views about it.

When someone responds directly to your own sources, pointing out they do not really support your claim, respond to that.

Don't try to respond to individuals; there are too many, and we are saying primarily the same few things. Respond to the things. Do it without your unhelpful numbering system.

Finally, stop pretending that you respond to us when mostly you keep saying that you will eventually respond to us.

 

[Aepervius]

"- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?"

I disagree that there is only one thematic and one answer the 14C dating. the rest is fluff , confusion *YOU* went into. And we all know (including you) why you went into that fluff and diversion : you are UNABLE to bring any scientific evidence against the 14C testing. So rather than admit it, you went into the bloody blood discusion, the non visible evidence of invisible patch (which use by your own link the cloth fiber itself, and is actually visible from one side), and the non reproducibility of the picture, and maybe other worthless discussion YOU started.

But in the end, those have NO influence whatsoever on the date. And that is the problem. You keep diverging you keep making longer post on debating and minor detail, because you cannot swallow the elephant in the room : the only solid evidence of dating there exists, is 14C dating and it says 14th century.

but hey, continue making long post arguing on the minutiae, like those "law and order " lawyer trying to get off a murderer on a technicality even while the evidence scream "it is him!".

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I’ll try again.

- Over the past 6 months there must have been (in combination) at least 100 “responses” (questions, comments and attacks) (not counting repeats) that I have not "answered" (not responded to)…
- But then, I probably spend about 4 hours a day trying to answer your responses. That’s all the time that I can reasonably spend on this project – and, other than my family, this project is my primary investment these days.
- If you look back over my 491 posts so far, you’ll see that the vast majority (at least) are responding directly to at least one of your responses (looking quickly, I think that ALL of my posts are responding – at least indirectly -- to at least one of them).
- And then, you fuss at me for what I have left unanswered…
- Which is a problem for me.
- And, you'll probably fuss at me for this, my answer, to your fussing.

- And again, when I try to answer one response, I usually provoke at least a few more. And so, by trying to answer one response, I generally accumulate multiple new ones, and rather than gradually reduce the number of unanswered responses on my table -- by trying to answer them -- I quickly increase them instead...
- And finally, it seems to me that I have given my answers to as many of your responses as 4 hrs a day will allow...

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?

- Do you want me to spend more time on this? Do you want me to do a better job of selecting what to answer next?

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

---Jabba

Seriously, which of the words on "Address the C14 issue" have you not understood?

What part of "anybody could have put blood on a piece of cloth" is difficult for you?

Do you have any difficulty with "there is no such thing as an invisible patch"?

Hans

 

[Garrette]

Seriously, which of the words on "Address the C14 issue" have you not understood?

What part of "anybody could have put blood on a piece of cloth" is difficult for you?

Do you have any difficulty with "there is no such thing as an invisible patch"?

Hans

Excellent summation of the few relevant things and given in the proper order, too.

 

[pakeha]

Seconded!

 

[Olowkow]

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

---Jabba

"We guys" aren't in the business of solving intransigent theists' imaginary problems with real world physics.

My sincere solution: I'd say just go for the "miraculous" explanation of the shroud and all the conflicts with science, and declare victory. Then claim atheists are mean and nasty fundamentalist science freaks. That's the only way to save face with your fellow believers who are expecting a win at this point.

Four hours a day is way too much time to spend with so few results.

 

[Mashuna]

- I’ll try again.

- Over the past 6 months there must have been (in combination) at least 100 “responses” (questions, comments and attacks) (not counting repeats) that I have not "answered" (not responded to)…
- But then, I probably spend about 4 hours a day trying to answer your responses. That’s all the time that I can reasonably spend on this project – and, other than my family, this project is my primary investment these days.
- If you look back over my 491 posts so far, you’ll see that the vast majority (at least) are responding directly to at least one of your responses (looking quickly, I think that ALL of my posts are responding – at least indirectly -- to at least one of them).
- And then, you fuss at me for what I have left unanswered…
- Which is a problem for me.
- And, you'll probably fuss at me for this, my answer, to your fussing.

- And again, when I try to answer one response, I usually provoke at least a few more. And so, by trying to answer one response, I generally accumulate multiple new ones, and rather than gradually reduce the number of unanswered responses on my table -- by trying to answer them -- I quickly increase them instead...
- And finally, it seems to me that I have given my answers to as many of your responses as 4 hrs a day will allow...

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?

- Do you want me to spend more time on this? Do you want me to do a better job of selecting what to answer next?

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

---Jabba

I think that if you're spending 4 hours a day, and the answers you've provided are the best you can manage, you're better off finding a different hobby. Honestly, it looks like you've spent 10 minutes a day coming up with what you've presented.

 

[davefoc]

Jabba, I know that what I'm about to say has been said before, but you've never (to the best of my memory) directly addressed any of the posts which say it.

Everything except the C14 is irrelevant, unless and until you can show why the C14 is dubious.

And what do you suppose is the most irrelevant thing of all?
...

One of the themes in quite a few of the posts has been that all that is required to prove that the shroud is a 14th century hoax is the C14 dating results.

The C14 dating is consistent with a wide variety of facts about the shroud. Would people in this thread immediately ignore all that other evidence if the C14 dating had conflicted with it?

I think the other evidence about the shroud, all of which either supports the 14th century date or doesn't conflict with it IMHO, provides a solid basis for believing that nothing untoward happened with regard to the C14 dating and it makes the C14 dating part of a consistent body of evidence.

For me, if the C14 test results pointed to a first century date for the shroud I would be very open to theories that were critical of some aspect of the C14 dating. In my life I have no memory of a situation where apparently solid scientific data pointed to such diametrically opposed possibilities and I would certainly be actively trying to resolve the apparent conflict both by looking at theories as to why the C14 dating was wrong and as to theories about why the various facts that had led me to believe it was a 14th century hoax were wrong.

Of course, even if the C14 dating pointed to a first century date there would still be no reason to believe the shroud wasn't a purpose built artifact and not a magically created one.

 

[Akhenaten]

Uphill. With a rake. In the rain.

- Do you want me to spend more time on this?

Yes. A mere four hours is hardly enough to demonstrate a real commitment. I'd be looking more towards sixteen hours a day, minmum.

Do you want me to do a better job of selecting what to answer next?

Yes. You must only ever select the issue of the C14 testing. No invisible patches. No bluuuuuurd. Just C14.

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

Oh. A sincere solution. OK.

Stop.

 

[Garrette]

One of the themes in quite a few of the posts has been that all that is required to prove that the shroud is a 14th century hoax is the C14 dating results.

The C14 dating is consistent with a wide variety of facts about the shroud. Would people in this thread immediately ignore all that other evidence if the C14 dating had conflicted with it?

I think the other evidence about the shroud, all of which either supports the 14th century date or doesn't conflict with it IMHO, provides a solid basis for believing that nothing untoward happened with regard to the C14 dating and it makes the C14 dating part of a consistent body of evidence.

That's the point. There is no conflicting evidence. There are merely claims of it, all of which have been repeatedly refuted.

I understand your point, and it's not invalid: Jabba's position is this:

1. The C14 evidence has not been refuted.

2. There is other evidence which contradicts the C14 evidence.

3. The other evidence is as compelling as the C14 evidence.

4. Therefore, the accuracy of the C14 evidence is still in doubt even though we can't show the actual error.

The problem, of course, is that #2 and #3 are in error, and therefore #4 does not apply.

Jabba's problem is that he will not admit that #2 and #3 are in error, so he clings to #4.

 

[wardenclyffe]

In fairness, the invisible patch (which is neither invisible nor does it use more recent fabric) theory is an attempt to explain away the C14 evidence. It's not a very effective attempt, but it is an attempt. The blood evidence has nothing to do with dating the shroud whatsoever. Blood was available in the first century, the 14th century and the 21st century and every century between and before.

Ward

 

[Aepervius]

One of the themes in quite a few of the posts has been that all that is required to prove that the shroud is a 14th century hoax is the C14 dating results.

The C14 dating is consistent with a wide variety of facts about the shroud. Would people in this thread immediately ignore all that other evidence if the C14 dating had conflicted with it?

I think the other evidence about the shroud, all of which either supports the 14th century date or doesn't conflict with it IMHO, provides a solid basis for believing that nothing untoward happened with regard to the C14 dating and it makes the C14 dating part of a consistent body of evidence.

For me, if the C14 test results pointed to a first century date for the shroud I would be very open to theories that were critical of some aspect of the C14 dating. In my life I have no memory of a situation where apparently solid scientific data pointed to such diametrically opposed possibilities and I would certainly be actively trying to resolve the apparent conflict both by looking at theories as to why the C14 dating was wrong and as to theories about why the various facts that had led me to believe it was a 14th century hoax were wrong.

Of course, even if the C14 dating pointed to a first century date there would still be no reason to believe the shroud wasn't a purpose built artifact and not a magically created one.

YOu may be right, but it is simply pointless for me to debate "what if".

Fact 1 : 14C dating Indicate 14th century. That is the biggest hurdle
Fact 2 : historical fact indicate 14th century. I consider them less strong, because they amount to hearsay/anecdotal evidence, they are strengthened by fact 1. But they are only minor evidence.

I don't see the hearsay as strengthenening teh 14C but the 14C confirming the hearsay about the shroud being a hoax.

 

[Aepervius]

In fairness, the invisible patch (which is neither invisible nor does it use more recent fabric) theory is an attempt to explain away the C14 evidence. It's not a very effective attempt, but it is an attempt. The blood evidence has nothing to do with dating the shroud whatsoever. Blood was available in the first century, the 14th century and the 21st century and every century between and before.

Ward

It would be a valid attempt if the link jabba provided himself did not show that invisible patch are not invisible (on one side they are visible) and more damnedly they are made by fiber of the cloth itself taken from anotehr palce. In other word they have no influence on 14C dating. Therefore it is a totally waste of time to discuss any theory which has NO influence on 14C dating.

 

[davefoc]

YOu may be right, but it is simply pointless for me to debate "what if".

Fact 1 : 14C dating Indicate 14th century. That is the biggest hurdle
Fact 2 : historical fact indicate 14th century. I consider them less strong, because they amount to hearsay/anecdotal evidence, they are strengthened by fact 1. But they are only minor evidence.

I don't see the hearsay as strengthenening teh 14C but the 14C confirming the hearsay about the shroud being a hoax.

I think I find the totality of evidence not including the C14 dating that the shroud is roughly a fourteenth century artifact much stronger than you.

If the C14 dating had not been consistent with the other evidence I would have been willing to consider just about any idea to reconcile the conflict.

This situation is similar to the position that the archeologist Meacham seems to find himself in except that he had come to believe very strongly in a first century date and the C14 results obviously conflicted significantly with that. Given my propensity for introspection about these things if I had been Meacham one possibility that I would have strongly considered is the possibility of self deception. Still when self deception is deeply established it is very hard to detect it and to reverse it. This is true even for skeptics although this particular issue doesn't provide evidence of that IMHO because the objective evidence so thoroughly supports a comprehensive conclusion that the shroud is a purpose built artifact dating roughly from the 14th century.

It is on other issues where I find evidence of self deception by skeptics. When they disagree with me I can see they are engaging in self deception.

 

[pgwenthold]

It would be a valid attempt if the link jabba provided himself did not show that invisible patch are not invisible (on one side they are visible) and more damnedly they are made by fiber of the cloth itself taken from anotehr palce. In other word they have no influence on 14C dating. Therefore it is a totally waste of time to discuss any theory which has NO influence on 14C dating.

I agree with wardenclyffe that the patch topic IS an attempt to address the 14C dating, BUT the problem is that once the patch idea was so thoroughly discredited, it was time to give it up. It's nonsensical on its very face, and Jabba's own sources impugn the whole idea, so it is no longer worth pursuing. No, an invisible patch is not a viable explanation for the 14C data. Let's move on to the next possibility. Biopolymer contamination? Out. CO contamination? Nah, that doesn't seem to do it, either.