Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

4. Effects from the fires that damaged the shroud

I'd think that fire would concentrate C14 if anything. C14 is heavier than C12 or C13, and therefore less energy is necessary to make it fly away.

 

[pakeha]

Possible reasons that the Carbon 14 testing was wrong...

A good summary of the possibilities.
I wonder if Jabba will come up with anything not on your list.

 

[Mashuna]

A good summary of the possibilities.
I wonder if Jabba will come up with anything not on your list.

6. I really really want it to be wrong.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

7 (as he previously stated) he can imagine someone disproving the dating in the future

 

[Monza]

- Well anyway, I think that I have a way you can prove that I'm avoiding the evidence -- if I really am.

- Select a "gatekeeper," rather than a spokesperson, to tell me which specific Q, C or A to try to answer next. Everyone can raise whatever questions and objections they wish -- but, instead of me deciding what to try to answer next, the gatekeeper will decide for me.
- I agree that there are numerous Q/C/A's that have been repeated numerous times -- but again, these are, themselves, numerous. Just tell me which of these to address next...
- I claim that if you go ahead and do that, I'll be slow, but you'll see that I do not try to avoid the evidence. That's exactly what I was trying to show with Dave's list re reweaving -- but then, people kept wanting me to move on to other issues. And if you noticed, in addressing Dave's list, I was admitting that my answers weren't that good... I wasn't giving up, as my task is to present the best Shroud authenticity case I can muster -- and, I do still think that the Shroud probably is authentic.

- Perhaps, instead of electing a gatekeeper, you guys could just talk amongst yourselves and decide "in committee" what you would most like me to address next. Maybe, you could develop a private distribution list for anyone who's interested in helping to direct the conversation. Maybe, someone could just offer him or her self to designate what I should answer next. Maybe, you could take turns in alphabetical order...

- I will still want equal time to direct the conversation myself.

--- Jabba

It's been 11 days and still nothing from you regarding the evidence of the C14 dating being incorrect. I think this proves you are avoiding the evidence.

 

[dlorde]

Whatever happened to:

- 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

 

[Pope130]

Is quoting yourself rude? 25th April, in post number 1188 of this thread:

Jabba,
Just answer the C14 question.

Still waiting.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I was self-appointed gatekeeper for 30minutes. I also asked you to just answer the 14C question. Still waiting. Does this confirm you are indeed avoiding the question?

 

[Aepervius]

The main problem with the fire hjypothesis is that it needs to bring in about 4 time as much foreign carbon loaded with fresh 14C than original carbon (about 20% original sample with 1st century origin and 80% fresh wood/combustible origin carbon). That is neigh impossible.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The main problem with the fire hjypothesis is that it needs to bring in about 4 time as much foreign carbon loaded with fresh 14C than original carbon (about 20% original sample with 1st century origin and 80% fresh wood/combustible origin carbon). That is neigh impossible.

Also, since carbon added from a fire is also called soot, such an influx would leave the fabric thoroughly blackened. Which is not what we observe.

Hans

 

[Akhenaten]

Nobody expects la Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición

- I would agree that you have provided some info that supports claims of C14 validity and weakens claims of invalidity, in this particular case -- but then, I disagree that you have provided info that proves C14 validity, or refutes C14 invalidity, in this case.

And yet the Vatican does agree with us.

What do you make of that, Jabba?

 

[Aepervius]

Also, since carbon added from a fire is also called soot, such an influx would leave the fabric thoroughly blackened. Which is not what we observe.

Hans

It feels like Punxsutawney here, because I remember pushing that argument something like 20 pages ago (and probably somebody pushed it 20 pages before me).

 

[catsmate]

Possible reasons that the Carbon 14 testing was wrong:
1. Invisible patch hypothesis
Comment: The invisible hypothesis is the most discussed idea in this thread. The evidence against it is daunting to the point that for any practical purposes it is reasonable to accept that the invisible hypothesis has been proved false.

2. Bioplastic coating
Comment: Roger Sparks, a carbon dating expert from New Zealand, makes very convincing arguments against this possibility here: http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm. This is clearly a fringe theory and bioplastic coating is not a recognized source of error for carbon 14 age dating. Even if it bioplastic coating was shown to be a possible source of error for the dating of a fabric the possibility that it could cause anything like the 1300 year error hypothesized for the shroud dating is essentially impossible for the reasons that Sparks outlined in the discussion linked to above.

3. Collusion
Comment: That are many hypothetical permutations of collusion by the people involved in the sampling and testing. All of them seem to be extremely unlikely. For one thing nobody has shown any kind of possible motive. But even if a motive could be theorized the well documented sampling and testing procedures coupled with the use of controls seems to preclude it.

4. Effects from the fires that damaged the shroud
Comment: This is a theory that carbon from the burning migrated into the shroud and perhaps there is a mechanism whereby carbon 14 as opposed to carbon 12 and carbon 13 preferentially migrated into the cloth. Sparks in the link above, argues both that preferential migration of carbon 14 from a fire is not possible and that if there was a problem with carbon 14 dating of samples based on exposure to fires that it would have been noticed by now. Meacham argues that there is very little if any carbon 14 dating that has been done on a sample alleged to have been a first century artifact that had been subjected to a fire in about 1500 AD so no conclusion is possible about the carbon 14 dating on the shroud. The problem, of course, with Meacham's line of argument is that carbon 14 dating might be deemed unreliable in almost any situation because there is always going to be something unique about a sample. No scientifically recognized reason has been put forth as to why the nature of the shroud's history would cause an error remotely in the range of the error hypothesized.

5. Other unknown sources of error for the carbon 14 testing
Comment: The argument here is that there are various known sources of error for carbon 14 testing and maybe not all sources of carbon 14 test errors may be known and with regard to the shroud one of these unknown sources of error has caused a test error.

This at best seems to be a remote possibility. None of the known problems with carbon 14 testing seem to apply here. The known problems include that the source of carbon for marine organisms is not atmospheric, some snails have been shown to incorporate older sources of carbon in their shells, and the use of old carbon sources in the preparation of materials as in the use of asphalt in some of the compounds used by the Egyptians in the creation of the mummies. One thing to note about the problems listed above is that they all have the effect of making a sample test older than it is and with the shroud the opposite problem is hypothesized.

Not to forget that the labs were experienced in sample handling and removal of surface contamination.

 

[pakeha]

I rather like the collusion hypothesis, myself.

3. Collusion
Comment: ...That are many hypothetical permutations of collusion by the people involved in the sampling and testing. All of them seem to be extremely unlikely. For one thing nobody has shown any kind of possible motive. But even if a motive could be theorized the well documented sampling and testing procedures coupled with the use of controls seems to preclude it. ...

Somehow the idea of the Vatican subverting the scientific community, exerting pressure on three different university labs and permitting the sale of items like this:

makes life a little more amusing.
Somehow I see lots of moody shots of the Vatican a là Godfather III, frustrated scientists drinking themselves to early graves from the shame of it all, strident bloggers trying to get the truth out, and the brooding presence of ancient cardinals determined to protect mankind from the dangers of truths we're not prepared for.

If we rule out collusion, what do we have?
Other than the white leather leggings?

 

[Jabba]

Evidence Against Carbon Dating

- In a separate paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), Rogers claims the following:
The non-image cloth typically shows weak
fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on the
cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown
color (see "Hands" below). The small, triangular, white
area is where the Raes sample was cut in 1973. The
radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there about 1
cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long. The
area where the radiocarbon sample was taken is relatively
dark, a fact that is not the result of dirt, image color, or
scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area,
brightening into more typical fluorescence to the right.
The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a
different chemical composition than the main part of the
cloth. This was obviously not considered before the sample was cut.

- Someone in our group claimed, and appeared to show, that there were numerous other places on the Shroud with the same coloring as the C14 sample. Can anyone point me to that claim?

--- Jabba

 

[Filippo Lippi]

You were asked about the C14 dating.

'Evasion noted'

 

[catsmate]

- In a separate paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), Rogers claims the following:
The non-image cloth typically shows weak
fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on the
cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown
color (see "Hands" below). The small, triangular, white
area is where the Raes sample was cut in 1973. The
radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there about 1
cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long. The
area where the radiocarbon sample was taken is relatively
dark, a fact that is not the result of dirt, image color, or
scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area,
brightening into more typical fluorescence to the right.
The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a
different chemical composition than the main part of the
cloth. This was obviously not considered before the sample was cut.

- Someone in our group claimed, and appeared to show, that there were numerous other places on the Shroud with the same coloring as the C14 sample. Can anyone point me to that claim?

--- Jabba

Where's Rogers' evidence for his claims? His unsupported word is valueless, especially given his past. Further this very point was addressed previously two months ago.

And what exactly does this have to do with the radiocarbon dating? Or is repeating this debunked nonsense just an other of you attempts to distract?

 

[Akhenaten]

- In a separate paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), Rogers claims the following:
The non-image cloth typically shows weak
fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on the
cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown
color (see "Hands" below). The small, triangular, white
area is where the Raes sample was cut in 1973. The
radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there about 1
cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long.

Would it be too much trouble for you to actually provide proper references?

Like, in this case, the actual picture that goes with this (bogus) commentary?

The area where the radiocarbon sample was taken is relatively
dark,

Marginally.

And?

. . .a fact that is not the result of dirt, image color, or
scorching.

Says who?

It looks to me as though the slight darkening in that area was likely caused by whatever agency did the damage that required the patch.

You'd have to be pretty bloody desperate/delusional/flat-out lying to try and claim that it's because that area is made from different cloth.

The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area,

No it's not.

brightening into more typical fluorescence to the right.

We'd need to see the whole shroud to asses what is "typical" and even then we'd still be left asking "So what?"

The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition than the main part of the cloth.

It does no such thing.

This was obviously not considered before the sample was cut.

Obvious to whom and in what way?

- Someone in our group claimed, and appeared to show, that there were numerous other places on the Shroud with the same coloring as the C14 sample. Can anyone point me to that claim?

It's hardly an earth-shattering claim. Why don't you just look at the damned thing?

I can't believe that simple observation doesn't reveal to you that yes, there's lots of bits that are that colour.

 

[Garrette]

- In a separate paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), Rogers claims the following:
--- SNIP ----

It isn't a paper. It's a FAQ. It has not been published nor peer-reviewed. The majority of the claims, including the one you quote, are entirely without references. The majority of the few references are not to papers but to Symposia and the like. The few references that are to papers are to those that have already been discredited (e.g., Adler in "Applied Optics.")

Then there is this beauty, from page 11 under question 13:

The DNA in Shroud blood samples shows the effects of significant aging: only short lengths of the chain remain intact.​

Really?

Not only have they proven blood on the shroud but they have DNA from it? Convenient that again there is no link to a reference. I, for one, will not consider another word from Rogers unless you can show the proof of this claim about DNA from Shroud blood.

The sources of your information and therefore the sources of your faith, Jabba, are utter crap. Rogers is not credible.

ETA: Don't take my comment about blood DNA as an invitation to avoid the C14 dating. That takes precedence. Focus your efforts on showing how that is wrong.

 

[IanS]

- In a separate paper (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), Rogers claims the following:
The non-image cloth typically shows weak
fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on the
cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown
color (see "Hands" below). The small, triangular, white
area is where the Raes sample was cut in 1973. The
radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there about 1
cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long. The
area where the radiocarbon sample was taken is relatively
dark, a fact that is not the result of dirt, image color, or
scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area,
brightening into more typical fluorescence to the right.
The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a
different chemical composition than the main part of the
cloth. This was obviously not considered before the sample was cut.

- Someone in our group claimed, and appeared to show, that there were numerous other places on the Shroud with the same coloring as the C14 sample. Can anyone point me to that claim?

--- Jabba

Why don't you look yourself for any such claims that you want you use?

Afaik the whole of the shroud caries all sorts of dirty marks.

Your link does not appear to state where that article was published, does it? Where is that article taken from?

Unless that is from a genuine research publication, then it's utterly useless for you to keep posting pro-shroud beliefs from long time Christian shroud fanatics like STURP founder member Ray Rogers.