Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

Wouldn't it have been more to the point to post a link to the article itself?

If it takes 13 hours to come up with an excuse for not posting a link in the first place I have a feeling we'll all be dead and buried by the time you get an answer to this.

Remember?

The article about reweaving and invisible patching I posted earlier?

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

I'm starting to develop a strong suspicion that Jabba is only reading what he considers to be selected highlights of the thread and that neither yours nor catsmate's (and mine for sure) posts are in that category.

 

[pakeha]

^
Be fair, Oh Pharaoh!
Jabba did say he was smoking sorry, having 'breakfast'.

...Though if you look at Benford, or the links posted earlier in this thread when Jabba/Rick brought her ravings in first, you'll see she's a general purpose woo.

This Benford?

M. Sue Benford, R.N., M.A. states: “The acceptance and appreciation of torsion fields, with their influencing spin characteristics both in defining and refining matter, opens a new perspective of scientific exploration into psi-phenomena. Possibly, we can conclude that life, and even mind, may be a manifestation of the constant, albeit subtle, interaction of the wave packets classically known as “matter” with the underlying physically real vacuum field.”

http://community.beliefnet.com/mandalatree/blog/2012/05/30/science_of_bio_energy_therapy_(reiki)

Breakfast time!

 

[zooterkin]

Ward,
- For some reason, I'm not able to edit what I submit these days.

Is it possible you've disabled Javascript in your browser?

 

[catsmate]

^
Be fair, Oh Pharaoh!
Jabba did say he was smoking sorry, having 'breakfast'.



This Benford?

http://community.beliefnet.com/mandalatree/blog/2012/05/30/science_of_bio_energy_therapy_(reiki)

Breakfast time!

That's her. Not exactly a person whose unsupported opinion on the validity of the shroud carries much weight.

 

[Dinwar]

Ward,
- The following is a source I provided a while back, but just in case you missed or forgot it, look up #39 & #43. They talk about invisible re-weaving.
--- Jabba

I've also provided links regarding reweaving. Mine are from people who ACTUALLY DO IT. They say two pertanent things:

1) It's nto invisible, and is obvious to anyone who examines the textile closely; and
2) It uses material from the same cloth, so it won't impact radiometric dating at all.

"Madam Flury-Lemburg had absolutely nothing to do with the sample location choice, two little known textile experts were brought in and it was argued over for two hours where the sample would be taken from (last minute) and not even by the experts.

You've obviously never done any sampling. I've said that before, by the way, and it still holds true. You NEVER get the higher-ups to take the samples--usually it's the new guy doing it. The fact that there were textile experts AT ALL makes this a better sampling protocol than any I'm familiar with (in environmental sampling there's a geologist involved, but they typically are learning the local geology as they're sampling it). And unless you can prove that the FIBERS are different, you've still got nothing.

These textile experts, basically, had NO prior experience with the Shroud. Absolutely no prior technical information was actually consulted, as in STURP photographs etc. It ‘seemed’ the choice was made blind.

Doesn't matter. Unless you can demosntrate that THE FIBERS were different from the fibers of the rest of the shroud (which reweaving demonstrably cannot do), it simply doesn't matter where the sample was taken from.

The event was video taped, but as mentioned, not all of it! hy? is the big question here.

No. The big question is why they bothered to tape ANY of it. I've taken hundreds, if not thousands, of samples. Except for security camera footage, I've never been videotaped. And we're talking samples that will determine whether companies need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. These critiques are coming from someone with no understanding of the actual methods of sampling. It's like if someone let a kid who just learned how to read critique The Lord of the Rings....

"As for Ms. Lemburg’s negating the patch theory; Funny how she wasn’t even aware of ‘French-Invisible-Reweaving’ methods, evidenced by her comments that all stitching would show signs on atleast one side or the other?

Funny how your side ignores the fact that French reweaving methods ARE VISIBLE. We've demonstrated that so often that it can only be willful dishonesty on your part, Jabba, to continue with that line of reasoning. There's simply no other explanation.

 

[carlitos]

Quoted in case Jabba has you on ignore.

You too, apparently. My fault for replying in this train wreck of a thread.

 

[carlitos]

I've also provided links regarding reweaving. Mine are from people who ACTUALLY DO IT. They say two pertanent things:

1) It's nto invisible, and is obvious to anyone who examines the textile closely; and
2) It uses material from the same cloth, so it won't impact radiometric dating at all.

Just checking to see if this is visible in the breakfast nook.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating - Reweaving?

- After more careful reading, it appears (as you guys imply) that Rogers, Benford, Marino and Pryor haven't taken into account a particular aspect of the Frenway method of reweave (to which they seem to be referring)...

- “First, you must be let in on a trade secret: Except in rare cases, you get thread to reweave a damaged place from hidden parts of the garment itself, from some place where the appearance and strength of the garment is not harmed in any way.” (From http://www.shrouduniversity.com/frenchreweavinginstructionbook.pdf, page 38)
- And then, “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on PRISTINE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL (my emphasis) to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth.” (from page 7 of the Thermochimica Acta article by Rogers at http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)

- Rogers was apparently not tuned into the part about threads “of the garment itself.”
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Help

Is it possible you've disabled Javascript in your browser?

Zoo,
- Could be. Can you easily describe how to re-able it?
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.

Translation: You're looking for yet another excuse to ignore the basic facts of the matter.

It's very simple, Jabba: There is NO way to patch the shroud without it being detectable. None. Zero. The set is empty. It is impossible. It cannot be done.

Give it up.

 

[wollery]

Jabba, can I ask you a simple question?

Do you know what happens to cloth as it ages?

 

[Akhenaten]

Zoo,
- Could be. Can you easily describe how to re-able it?
--- Jabba

Jab,
- First you will need to travel to Indonesia to ensure that you get genuine Javanese files.
--- Akha

 

[davefoc]

INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!


Jesus Christ.

Why?

The invisible patch hypothesis includes the claim that somebody can either attach threads to the ends of existing threads in some way that has not been demonstrated to be possible or that somebody can remove entire threads from the shroud that cross the area to be patched and reweave in new threads. This hypothesis doesn't necessarily require the reuse of existing threads.

That a technique has been documented that uses existing threads doesn't mean that the invisible patch hypothesis needs to involve the use existing threads. Of course, the requirement to find medieval threads by these hypothetical invisible patching "magicians" that would match first century threads so well that nobody noticed the difference between the fourteenth century threads they used and the existing first century threads adds to the implausibility of the invisible patch hypothesis but that doesn't mean that the invisible patch hypothesis needs to include the use of existing threads. It is already an implausible hypothesis, there is no restriction on adding additional implausible elements to an implausible hypothesis.

Comment on the Benford/Marino paper linked to above
Why are they wasting their time writing this stuff? If they believe a truly invisible patch is possible why don't they make one or find somebody that can. Better yet why don't they find an example of invisible medieval patching or even some medieval documentation of the process? Of course the reason that they don't do any of that is that invisible patching like they hypothesize is impossible but miscellaneous unsubstantiated blathering is something they can do easily even if the invisible patch hypothesis is impossible.

 

[pakeha]

Why?

...This hypothesis doesn't necessarily require the reuse of existing threads. ...

Actually, according to the sources of the Benford Marino paper, it does.
ETA:

the authors contacted the
president and owner of Without A Trace, Inc. (www.withoutatrace.com) in Chicago, IL,
Mr. Michael Ehrlich. Without A Trace has provided invisible mending services for over
20 years. 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.” According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread
restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century
owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and
expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French
Weave for repairs.

 

[pakeha]

Here's the exact wording of the cited source:

French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

I think we can say with some confidence that the source used by Benford/Marino is quite specific about what is entailed by 'invisible' weaving.

It uses material from the existing fabric and as such I think we can say it would not affect the C14 dating.

Breakfast time?

 

[Dinwar]

Why?

The simplest answer is that no other posibility has been demonstrated thus far. A quick Google search yields a number of companies that do this technique, and they all say "We use threads/patches from the cloth we are repairing". No other technique has been described, and the specific technique (french re-weaving) is just that: a specific technique, one of several possible ones, which uses specific methods to accomplish specific goals. What Jabba is attempting to do is to make us, through verbose obfuscation, forget that what he's proposing is at best seriously flawed and at worst an attempt to use an unknown and unproven mechanism to cast doubt on expert analysis (something you simply don't get to do in science).

So asking why threads from the cloth have to be used is sort of like asking "Why is a football field 100 yards?" The answer is, that's how it's done. And while it's not a very satisfying answer, until someone demonstrates another technique it is a sufficient answer.

 

[davefoc]

Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.

 

[pakeha]

I simply went to the link cited in the Benford/Marino paper.
This one:
(www.withoutatrace.com)

What I quoted is from www.withoutatrace.com

Here it is again:

French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

The Benford/Marino paper stated specifically

According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French Weave for repairs.

We've been over this before on this thread.

 

[Resume]

Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.

Deleted.

 

[pakeha]

Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.

I hope my quotations cleared that up, davefoc.
Yes, The French re-weave specifically uses thread from the original cloth.
At least, according to the Benford/Marino source.