Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

Multivac,
- I didn't mean to imply that I was simply simply "sticking to my story," or that I expected to "prove" anything. My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.
- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question.
--- Jabba

Please don't bring in that mangy old Mandylion again. He has fleas and stinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

 

[Olowkow]

http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43

Jabba may as well copy and paste from the above nonsense, rather than spend time looking for new ways to elevate his lack of scientific understanding to any kind of theory. It's all he has, and the rebuttal by MRC_Hans, in the comments, is more than sufficient to have ended any honest argument of authenticity long ago. The gainsaying of any mention of the need for scientific proof by Jabba has taken on the character of a hobby, to be kind, and frankly any further rehashing of his arguments are a fool's errand.

In my opinion, it would be much more interesting if someone were to take on the challenge of actually figuring out who made the thing, and how. But unfortunately that's not what zealots do, and honest researchers apparently don't really care.

 

[Dinwar]

Multivac,
- I didn't mean to imply that I was simply simply "sticking to my story," or that I expected to "prove" anything. My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.
- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question.
--- Jabba

By "calls the C14 results into serious question", do you mean that you have data on the actual methods by which the C14 dating was done? Because if not, you've got nothing and are wasting your time. Furthermore, the C14 dating is rather conclusive--if the laws of physics hold true, the shroud is a millenia younger than you suspect. So there's really no evidence I can imagine that doesn't indicate error in the C14 results and which counters them.

- I’ve provided a LOT of ALLEGED evidence against the carbon dating.

No. You've provided baseless speculation that we've demonstrated to be completely false (the invisible patch nonsense) and attempted to argue that the mere presence of real blood on the cloth disproves the C14 date (as if the Middle Ages lacked in bloodshed). That's it--and neither is valid evidence againist the C14 dating (the former because it's false, and the latter because it's nonsensical).

- You guys claim that the researchers, and authors otherwise, that I reference regarding the carbon dating are largely unqualified and biased;

It hasnt' been claimed, it's been DEMONSTRATED. There's a difference.

and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans -- let alone reasonable doubt.

I've said no such thing, and I take offense to you putting those words in my mouth. I've argued from the beginning that "reasonable doubt" is not a valid concept in scientific study, that your demand that we treat it as a valid concept is nothing more than an irrational attempt to force us to comply with a conversation style you think favors your views, and that you're demonstrably incapable of determining what is reasonable anyway (your utter lack of understanding of radiometric dating proves that) so any assessment you make about the validity of any doubt is irrelevant.

- I am currently trying to gather up links and arguments to refute your claims and further make my case…

We've heard that before. After 20 years one would hope you'd have them closer to hand. It's indicative of a very sloppy research methodology.

 

[IanS]

- I’ve provided a LOT of ALLEGED evidence against the carbon dating.

- You guys say, “That’s not evidence; THIS is evidence!” (Your evidence being, essentially, the Nature article.)
- You guys claim that the researchers, and authors otherwise, that I reference regarding the carbon dating are largely unqualified and biased; and, that my alleged “evidence” is essentially neither peer reviewed nor first hand, and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans -- let alone reasonable doubt.

- I am currently trying to gather up links and arguments to refute your claims and further make my case…
- We'll see...
- But, I will be back.

--- Jabba

But you have said exactly that same thing many times before in this thread.

And each time, if you came back with anything, then you've come back with exactly the same articles and claims from your fellow religious shroud believers who could not get any of their faith-based beliefs published in genuine mainstream science research journals.

You are not posting "evidence". What you are posting each time is religious propaganda designed to fool people like you who desperately want to believe that the shroud is evidence of the crucifixion of a miraculous Jesus.

 

[pakeha]

... My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.
- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question. ...

Sooner or later Jabba will have to actually produce this 'great preponderance of evidence'.
He hasn't yet so far, so it's something I'm looking forward to.
Any bets on the likelihood it will contain references to the Pray Manuscript?

- I’ve provided a LOT of ALLEGED evidence against the carbon dating. ...

No, you haven't, Jabba, at least none which hasn't been thoroughly rebutted.
Remember how it was demonstrated how foolish the idea of patching, invisible or otherwise was?
How inconsequential the 'blood' controversy?
How falsified the idea of biological polymers?
Haven't you taken any of that on board yet?

In any case, I'm looking forward to these new directions you will be presenting here.

 

[carlitos]

After 20 years one would hope you'd have them closer to hand. It's indicative of a very sloppy research methodology.

It really is. Wouldn't a 20-year researcher on a topic have some files or something? Go to "refutes C14" and grab the contents? Geez.

 

[Pierson5]

Hi everyone,

I've been following this thread off and on for a little while. I was having a discussion with another individual who is quite familiar with the literature regarding the (pro)authenticity of the shroud. I was wondering what your guys' take was on his response to some of your criticisms. (I apologize if they have been addressed before).

While I agree the argument regarding blood isn't a convincing argument for authenticity, it does appear there is a publication which concludes there is blood on the shroud:


Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)


Regarding the C14 dating and invisible patch theory, there have been publications addressing the problem:

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.pdf

I saw the post by Davefoc, and got this in response:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf
Specifically Entry 39 (regarding Mechthild) and 45

Source: Benford M.Sue and Marino Joseph G. ―Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud, ―Chemistry Today (26:4, Jul/Aug 2008), pp. 8-9.

Regarding the work of Antonacci: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

I think to be fair to Jabba, there has been published evidence for the blood and for the patch hypothesis. It's not that the C14 results are wrong, but that the samples taken were not from the original cloth.

And finally, has there been any publication refuting Rogers' work published in 2005?

 

[Dinwar]

It really is. Wouldn't a 20-year researcher on a topic have some files or something? Go to "refutes C14" and grab the contents? Geez.

I've got a long-term project going, for my own amusement (yes, I'm the kind of person to do research for fun....). First thing I did was to create a folder on my hard drive, and a backup on a thumb drive, with files to help me organize my thoughts. Once I had enough to start really processing information, I started a Word document for that. The Word document changes, but at any time you can ask me "Hey, what do you think about X?" and if I've gotten to it I can pull up my latest thoughts, complete with references, and print them out. References are saved by author name and publication date (like, Scott_1995.pdf), so I can instantly find the ones I want. And I've only been working on this for about six weeks, and not very hard at that (honestly, Minecraft gets in the way a lot....). I just do not understand the concept of a "researcher" being unable to find his references. Like I said, this indicates an extremely sloppy research protocol, which in turn indicates that a lot of stuff is getting missed. I'm not saying that I won't miss references, but at least I won't FORGET references!

I think to be fair to Jabba, there has been published evidence for the blood and for the patch hypothesis. It's not that the C14 results are wrong, but that the samples taken were not from the original cloth.

This has been addressed. There are three reasons to conclude it's the same cloth: first, the patch hypothesis is clearly a post-hoc rationalization for why the C14 dating was wrong. The reason you know that is that it was only presented after the C14 data came out, and only ever in terms of "This may be one way it could be wrong". Second, there's no positive evidence for such a patch. It's always presented in a vague "There could be one!" tone. Third, and most importantly, the specific methods proposed for generating the patch render it irrelevant. Reweaving, or invisible weaving, is 1) not invisible, and 2) done by utilizing fibers from the rest of the cloth (either individual fibers from numerous places, or a single patch from a different place). So the specific methods Jabba proposed for the patch's origins render the entire argument irrelevant--even if he's right, it would have no impact on the C14 dating.

As far as blood goes, I've always been willing to accept that there's blood on the shroud. People bleed--I know that there's some of my blood on equipment at my alma matre. It's rather silly to believe that no one has ever bled even a little on the cloth. After all, a backing was sewn on. Not sure how many people here have tried their hand at sewing by hand, but every time I've tried it I end up with really pretty red stains on the cloth. So the blood thing is trivial, and in no way refutes the C14 dating. It's simply a non-issue. There's blood. So what? Doesnt' mean it came from the guy who made the picture in the cloth, and it certainly couldn't be there before the cloth was.

 

[pakeha]

...
While I agree the argument regarding blood isn't a convincing argument for authenticity, it does appear there is a publication which concludes there is blood on the shroud:

Hi back to you.
I think it's been mentioned several times the blood is a side issue and why.

Regarding the C14 dating and invisible patch theory, there have been publications addressing the problem:

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.pdf

Error 404.

I saw the post by Davefoc, and got this in response:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf
Specifically Entry 39 (regarding Mechthild) and 45

The site's list only goes up to entry 42.
Pierson5, I suggest your friend get their sources straight. And perhaps formulate their arguments on their own, rather than just quoting sites which have been picked over here over 60 pages.

The hypothesis of the invisible patch was falsified by the person who conducted the 2002 restoration of the shroud.
Good enough?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Hi Pierson5,

Welcome to the thread. You might want to invite your friend to participate here. Your friend has sort of put you in the position to defend arguments that are not necessarily yours. That almost never works.

Ward

P.S. If Jabba comes back with his preponderance of evidence that means we get to talk about The Pray Manuscript again. Yay!

 

[Pierson5]

404? Woops!

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

If it doesn't work again, it just Roger's published work: Rogers / Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194

I recognize the post hoc nature of the hypothesis. Regardless, he did publish his work.

The site's list only goes up to entry 42.
Pierson5, I suggest your friend get their sources straight. And perhaps formulate their arguments on their own, rather than just quoting sites which have been picked over here over 60 pages.

The hypothesis of the invisible patch was falsified by the person who conducted the 2002 restoration of the shroud.
Good enough?

Huh? Entry 45 is on page 26 under "Conclusion," and is followed by the citation in my last post. Wasn't Roger's paper published in '05?

Welcome to the thread. You might want to invite your friend to participate here. Your friend has sort of put you in the position to defend arguments that are not necessarily yours. That almost never works.

I did, he didn't seem interested. Says he's been down this path before and you guys just resort to non-scientific ad hominem attacks. He took a look at the thread, and I can kind of see where he is coming from (a little bit of mockery here and there, which I personally wouldn't care too much about). I just thought I would filter out the clutter and just bring up the citations.

 

[pakeha]

404? Woops!

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

If it doesn't work again, it just Roger's published work: Rogers / Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194

I recognize the post hoc nature of the hypothesis. Regardless, he did publish his work.

Yes, I've read the the work.
And yes, it's true the three labs involved in the carbon 14 dating haven't refuted it.
Why do you think that is?

...Huh? Entry 45 is on page 26 under "Conclusion," and is followed by the citation in my last post.

Found, thanks for the clarification.
Here's the text you're citing:

Category: Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving
Evidence: In response to a claim by textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who claimed in a
personal communication to Benford and Marino in November 2000 that an ―invisible reweave‖
was technically impossible, they contacted the president and owner of Without A Trace, Inc.
(www.withoutatrace.com) in Chicago, IL, Mr. Michael Ehrlich. Mr. Ehrlich‘s response to Flury-
Lemberg‘s statement was that the modern-day, time-saving technique for large repairs, called
―Inweaving,‖ would indeed be invisible from the surface but easily recognizable from the back
as she claimed. However, the technique used in 16th Century Europe, called ―French Weaving,‖
is an altogether different technique from Inweaving. French Weaving, now only done on small
imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side ―invisibility.‖
Erlich also wrote, ―Today, there is a modern, time-saving technique called ‗inweaving‘ that
would be invisible from the surface, but easily recognizable from the back. However, the
technique used in sixteenth century Europe called ―French weaving‖ is an entirely different
matter. French weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is, indeed, invisible.
Sixteenth century owners of the Shroud certainly had enough material resources and weeks of
time at their disposal to accomplish the task

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the person who conducted the 2002 restoration of the shroud, was of the opinion such an invisible weave was impossible.

A modern invisible weave is visible from the reverse side.

A French reweave involves using threads from the same cloth and so the carbon 14 dating would NOT be affected by the alleged patching.

Wasn't Roger's paper published in '05?

Yes, indeed.

 

[Dinwar]

I did, he didn't seem interested. Says he's been down this path before and you guys just resort to non-scientific ad hominem attacks. He took a look at the thread, and I can kind of see where he is coming from (a little bit of mockery here and there, which I personally wouldn't care too much about).

Typical. It never ceases to amaze me how little non-scientists know about scientific debate. Believe it or not, this is sedate for scientific debates--particularly ones in which one side has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they refuse to be swayed by evidence, and they're ignorant of the most basic information about the system to boot (both of which Jabba has demonstrated time and again).

Sorry, but when I read this it always sounds like nothing more than "They don't agree with me, so I'll find some reason to dismiss them." It may or may not be true, but I've yet to find a serious researcher on this board who uses this argument and have only rarely found crackpots who don't.

I recognize the post hoc nature of the hypothesis. Regardless, he did publish his work.

So what? Publishing his work doesn't mean he's right--it merely means he's found an editor and two or more reviewers that thought it was worth publishing. I've disagreed with published work all the time, even work published by well-respected scientists. And the fact that his argument is a post hoc justification, rather than a tested and justified criticism, means that it's not worth considering. He's doing nothing more than flailing about, trying to find whatever argument he can that can salvage his pet theory. This one is perfect for him, too, since it can never be disproven (C14 testing being destructive--and he can always argue that any additional samples taken are part of another invisible patch!). Furthermore, it's inconsistent. There are known patches in the shroud, and they are nothing like what Rogers argues this patch is like. These known patches are in parts that would be vastly more likely to undergo repairs, particularly repairs that render the patch invisible--yet we're expected to believe, BASED ON NOTHING, that the area that multiple experts examined and sampled just happens to be a patch that was created using technology no one has ever heard of, reproduced, or even hypothesized. I'm sorry, but science doesn't work that way. What DOES work that way is wishful thinking.

I'd say it's an issue of parsimony, but it doesn't even rise to that level. Before we can discuss something in science we need proof that there's something to discuss. Rogers hasn't provided it yet, so there's literally nothing to talk about here from a scientific perspective. It's mere speculation at best, and wishful thinking at worst--and that would be true even if Rogers was right, because he'd only be right by blind chance.

 

[Giordano]

Pierson5,

Welcome! Happy to have you join the discussion.

From what I can tell, much what you are presenting in you first posts has been largely covered, and already disproven, in this thread. I know it is a big commitment, but if you haven't already done so, you should read the entire thread. If then you could bring in fresh material questioning the 14C dating, I would be very interested to see it.

The Prior PDF is largely a long list of pro-Shroud random quotes, grasping at straws, and speculation. "So and so at this or that conference stated that Jones had told him that there might be cotton in the patch... If so..." or "if an invisible weave was used...". None of this is evidence- it is more gossip and wishful thinking.

 

[IanS]

Hi everyone,

I've been following this thread off and on for a little while. I was having a discussion with another individual who is quite familiar with the literature regarding the (pro)authenticity of the shroud. I was wondering what your guys' take was on his response to some of your criticisms. (I apologize if they have been addressed before).

OK, well if you look back through this thread you will see that all of these arguments have been addressed here before ... many, many times.

While I agree the argument regarding blood isn't a convincing argument for authenticity, it does appear there is a publication which concludes there is blood on the shroud:


Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

Firstly, afaik - Adler and Heller are well known long time shroud believers who have long been writing about believing the shroud to be genuine.

Secondly, Applied Optics appears to be a favourite "journal" for shroud believers, but if it is a "real" science research journal at all, then it's an extremely obscure one. And the same goes for the "Canadian Forensic Sci. Society Journal". If there is some real genuine science there, then why is it not published in one of the numerous well known science journals such JACS or J.Chem Soc? And why is not ever published by genuinely independent working research scientists? And if these are chemical tests for blood decomposition products, then why is it not published in a real chemistry journal?

As others have pointed out here many times before - since the shroud has been in existence, according to the C14, since at least circa.1260AD, it's obvious that over the course of more than 700 years of the shroud being handled by innumerable people, that traces of blood, skin, and saliva etc. must have fallen on to the shroud many hundreds of times.

But if the red areas (ie the "wounds") on the image are supposed to be Christ’s blood, then we should not be talking about trying to detect mere "traces". Instead those many large red areas should be entirely blood, and lots of it! If that red stuff is all blood, them it should have been child’s play for anyone to detect great quantities of blood.

Regarding the C14 dating and invisible patch theory, there have been publications addressing the problem:

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.pdf

I saw the post by Davefoc, and got this in response:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf
Specifically Entry 39 (regarding Mechthild) and 45

I have not looked at your two links (above), because we have been through all of this at least 50 times before in this thread. But, as far as Rogers paper in Thermo Chim Acta is concerned -

Firstly, Ray Rogers was not an independent practicing research chemist. On the contrary he was a long time shroud believer and had been a member of STURP since the 1970's. At the time of writing that paper, which was an amalgam of all sorts of previous pro-shroud articles that he'd written over the decades, he was by then (2004-5) retired and working only from the rooms in his own home.

His paper says he was sent a number of microscopically small threads by Luigi Gonella, who apparently told Rogers that he had "excised the threads from the centre of the C14 sample". I'm not going to waste time by repeating all the many pages of previous explanation about what is wrong with that position, but very briefly -

- Rogers is taking Gonella’s word for the origin of those threads, but cannot himself of actually known where those threads came from.

- Gonella had no official access to the C14 sample when it was cut, and certainly should not have been in any position to illicitly remove any part of the cut sample strip.

- all three C14 labs examined their samples in detail under microscopic magnification before any testing, and none of them found any sign of threads being removed from any part of their samples.

- if Gonella’s threads were ever from the shroud at all, then it seem far more likely they were obtained way back in the late 1970's as part of STURP’s access to collecting loose surface debris on sticky tape.

- if it's loose debris of that sort, then the threads could be absolutely anything, inc. any debris that had fallen on to the shroud from members of STURP handling the shroud in 1978, as well as quite obviously from any of the many hundreds of people who had handled the shroud since c.1260.

- Rogers never saw any patch. What he claimed to see was only some differences in colour on certain threads under microscopic magnification. But anyone who has ever looked through a lab microscope knows that colour differences of that sort easily occur simply by rotating the sample stage at different angles to the lighting source.

- And finally on the puzzling question of how Ray Rogers ever got that article past the editor of Thermo Chimica. Acta - something I had not noticed before until I just checked this morning, is that Ray Rogers was actually on the editorial board of that particular Journal since it’s inception in 1970! See this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers ... that probably goes a very long way to explaining how a well known shroud fanatic like Ray Rogers ever got an overtly religious pro shroud article published in a real, albeit very minor and obscure, science journal.


- etc. etc. etc.

Regarding the work of Antonacci: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

I think to be fair to Jabba, there has been published evidence for the blood and for the patch hypothesis. It's not that the C14 results are wrong, but that the samples taken were not from the original cloth.

And finally, has there been any publication refuting Rogers' work published in 2005?

Again, I have not looked at your ref. to Antonacci, because we have been through his article at least 30 times here before.

But whilst it's true that Jabba, and indeed all shroud believers and all the numerous shroud books ever published, do cite various "published evidence" for their beliefs about the shroud, those publications are never from truly independent practicing research scientists in a relevant field of expertise, and never published in genuine well known authoritative science research journals. Instead they are almost all self-published amateur science from well known long time Christian shroud believers.


As for published refutation of Rogers paper re. an invisible patch - why on earth do you think the original C14 labs would waste their valuable research time and resources bothering to write papers refuting Christian shroud beliefs like that? Real science journals (such as Nature) would also not waste their time and journal space allowing the publication of refutations of that sort which just amount to people being conned into giving credit to Christian religious beliefs by being drawn into published back-&-forth arguments with religious shroud believers ... we are talking here about the work of genuine science research journals, not about the role of religious propaganda and preaching magazines for the faithful!

 

[David Mo]

Adler, Heller and Rogers scientific quality.

O
Firstly, afaik - Adler and Heller are well known long time shroud believers who have long been writing about believing the shroud to be genuine.

Secondly, Applied Optics appears to be a favourite "journal" for shroud believers, but if it is a "real" science research journal at all, then it's an extremely obscure one. And the same goes for the "Canadian Forensic Sci. Society Journal". If there is some real genuine science there, then why is it not published in one of the numerous well known science journals such JACS or J.Chem Soc? And why is not ever published by genuinely independent working research scientists? And if these are chemical tests for blood decomposition products, then why is it not published in a real chemistry journal?

(...)
- Rogers is taking Gonella’s word for the origin of those threads, but cannot himself of actually known where those threads came from.

- Gonella had no official access to the C14 sample when it was cut, and certainly should not have been in any position to illicitly remove any part of the cut sample strip.

(...)

- if Gonella’s threads were ever from the shroud at all, then it seem far more likely they were obtained way back in the late 1970's as part of STURP’s access to collecting loose surface debris on sticky tape.

- if it's loose debris of that sort, then the threads could be absolutely anything, inc. any debris that had fallen on to the shroud from members of STURP handling the shroud in 1978, as well as quite obviously from any of the many hundreds of people who had handled the shroud since c.1260.

- Rogers never saw any patch. What he claimed to see was only some differences in colour on certain threads under microscopic magnification. But anyone who has ever looked through a lab microscope knows that colour differences of that sort easily occur simply by rotating the sample stage at different angles to the lighting source.

- And finally on the puzzling question of how Ray Rogers ever got that article past the editor of Thermo Chimica. Acta - something I had not noticed before until I just checked this morning, is that Ray Rogers was actually on the editorial board of that particular Journal since it’s inception in 1970! See this -(...) ... that probably goes a very long way to explaining how a well known shroud fanatic like Ray Rogers ever got an overtly religious pro shroud article published in a real, albeit very minor and obscure, science journal.


- etc. etc. etc.

I add: Adler and Heller claimed they had found a valid method to detect ancient blood. This is important news for the world of archaeology. Archaeologists are in permanent dispute about this subject and new experiments about it are welcomed and discussed. But in scientific archaeology nobody knows the Adler and Heller infallible method and nobody quotes his work. They are unknown.

Adler and Heller claim the blood red color in the Shroud is due to important levels of bilirrubine. They said once they had made some experiences that confirm it. But no one has seen this experiences and no one had repeat them. They are scientifically unknowns.

So, I don’t rely on Adlen and Heller’s “scientific” findings.

About the Rogers’ samples.

He claims three different ways the radiocarbon samples arrived in his hands:

First: Gonella gives him.
Second: Gonella gives the sample to AMSTAR (a sindonist society) who gives him.
Third: Gonella gives the sample to a person that gives the sample to another that gives the sample to another that gives him.

Conclusion: We don’t know what is the authentic origin of the sample.

I add: Rogers used another sample from the original removed by Raes at 1973. But the 1988 research team refuted the Raes sample because it was no reliable at all.

All this are uncomfortable facts for sindonists, and they usually prefer to forget it. Only the anti-rogerists side of sindonism (Jackson and specially Antonacci) points to it.

 

[pakeha]

Firstly, a belated welcome to Pierson5.
Sorry I didn't do that first thing.

As you can see, these are subjects we've been discussing from a lot of different points of views here.
Is there anything new from the pro-authenticity advocates?
If you know of anything, Pierson5, it would be great if you posted it up.

 

[catsmate]

While I agree the argument regarding blood isn't a convincing argument for authenticity, it does appear there is a publication which concludes there is blood on the shroud:


Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

Already dealt with. The errors in Adler's "science" were demonstrated long ago, including why his "tests" were (and are) worthless.
There is no evidence for blood on the shroud.

Regarding the C14 dating and invisible patch theory, there have been publications addressing the problem:

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.pdf

I saw the post by Davefoc, and got this in response:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf
Specifically Entry 39 (regarding Mechthild) and 45

The "invisible patch" nonsense has been dealt with, there is none.

I think to be fair to Jabba, there has been published evidence for the blood and for the patch hypothesis. It's not that the C14 results are wrong, but that the samples taken were not from the original cloth.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

And finally, has there been any publication refuting Rogers' work published in 2005?

Rogers made claims about how he received alleged samples from the shroud that conflict with the witnesses; he utterly failed to show that his alleged samples are from the shroud.
His vanillin "test" has also been exposed as nonsense.
His "studies" are nonsense and recycled speculation.

Again this has been dealt with. Several times I believe in this thread,

OK, well if you look back through this thread you will see that all of these arguments have been addressed here before ... many, many times.

Indeed.

Secondly, Applied Optics appears to be a favourite "journal" for shroud believers, but if it is a "real" science research journal at all, then it's an extremely obscure one. And the same goes for the "Canadian Forensic Sci. Society Journal". If there is some real genuine science there, then why is it not published in one of the numerous well known science journals such JACS or J.Chem Soc? And why is not ever published by genuinely independent working research scientists? And if these are chemical tests for blood decomposition products, then why is it not published in a real chemistry journal?

Because more significant journals have higher standards for articles, 'shopping around' for journals known for less intense scrutiny of articles is common with those peddling dubious science.

But if the red areas (ie the "wounds") on the image are supposed to be Christ’s blood, then we should not be talking about trying to detect mere "traces". Instead those many large red areas should be entirely blood, and lots of it! If that red stuff is all blood, them it should have been child’s play for anyone to detect great quantities of blood.
Actually if they were real blood they wouldn't be red after this time.

I have not looked at your two links (above), because we have been through all of this at least 50 times before in this thread. But, as far as Rogers paper in Thermo Chim Acta is concerned -

Firstly, Ray Rogers was not an independent practicing research chemist. On the contrary he was a long time shroud believer and had been a member of STURP since the 1970's. At the time of writing that paper, which was an amalgam of all sorts of previous pro-shroud articles that he'd written over the decades, he was by then (2004-5) retired and working only from the rooms in his own home.

His paper says he was sent a number of microscopically small threads by Luigi Gonella, who apparently told Rogers that he had "excised the threads from the centre of the C14 sample". I'm not going to waste time by repeating all the many pages of previous explanation about what is wrong with that position, but very briefly -

- Rogers is taking Gonella’s word for the origin of those threads, but cannot himself of actually known where those threads came from.

- Gonella had no official access to the C14 sample when it was cut, and certainly should not have been in any position to illicitly remove any part of the cut sample strip.

- all three C14 labs examined their samples in detail under microscopic magnification before any testing, and none of them found any sign of threads being removed from any part of their samples.

- if Gonella’s threads were ever from the shroud at all, then it seem far more likely they were obtained way back in the late 1970's as part of STURP’s access to collecting loose surface debris on sticky tape.

- if it's loose debris of that sort, then the threads could be absolutely anything, inc. any debris that had fallen on to the shroud from members of STURP handling the shroud in 1978, as well as quite obviously from any of the many hundreds of people who had handled the shroud since c.1260.

- Rogers never saw any patch. What he claimed to see was only some differences in colour on certain threads under microscopic magnification. But anyone who has ever looked through a lab microscope knows that colour differences of that sort easily occur simply by rotating the sample stage at different angles to the lighting source.

- And finally on the puzzling question of how Ray Rogers ever got that article past the editor of Thermo Chimica. Acta - something I had not noticed before until I just checked this morning, is that Ray Rogers was actually on the editorial board of that particular Journal since it’s inception in 1970! See this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers ... that probably goes a very long way to explaining how a well known shroud fanatic like Ray Rogers ever got an overtly religious pro shroud article published in a real, albeit very minor and obscure, science journal.

Excellent summary. Frankly I can't be bothered refuting, yet again, the silly recycled "arguments" peddled by shroudies.

 

[Jabba]

Evidence Against Catbon Dating

- Someone (I can't remember who) gave me a link for checking out the review status of different scientific journals -- but of course, I lost it.
- Suggestions (other than the usual punch lines)?
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

There's always Google and Google scholar.
In any case, aren't you supposed to be offering new and definitive directions in pro-authenticity arguments?