Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Acleron]

My point was that it took something as solid as a new C14 to refute the first one.

Since I have not see even one half-convincing argument for the first one being wrong, I personally see no reason for another, but the believers might want to give it a try.

Hans

Sorry I was little blunt there.

If it was analysed enough times then the results would suit both sides. At least one result would be an outlier sufficient for the deniers to claim success and there wouldn't be any shroud left. (but I think this has been discussed before )

 

[IanS]

Okay, that's a good point and a good reason to keep talking about the shroud; i.e. it's the same as continuing to talk about creationism. Shroudies and creationists both constitute communities of faithlessness as opposed to communities of faith; or, as you put it, they're closet skeptics. Each group wants to prove Christianity.

The shroudies may want to prove the shroud genuine, but they are not in the business of doing that in any objectively honest way. What they want to do is to perform experiments which they can interpret as supporting belief in a genuine shroud of Jesus ... any results to the contrary will always be, not merely rejected and discarded, but actively the focus of smear campaigns to discredit the experiments.

They are happy with science, but only as long as it says what they want it to say.

As far as future C14 tests are concerned - although it's probably an attraction for many research labs to be involved in testing an artefact as infamous as the shroud, I suspect many of the best known labs would now refuse to make further tests, on the basis that (a)they can now see the extent of disingenuous involvement of STURP and the way the followers of STURP will try to discredit the results with all manner of unscientific faith claims dressed up as "science", and (b)there is in any case no need for any further tests since as far as anyone knows there was nothing wrong with the original C14 tests anyway.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I basically agree, but ... if I were to design the next C14 test, I would preempt all their reservations, i.e:

Randomized samples from different parts of the shroud (since the first test, we have aquired technology that can produce reliable results from much smaller samples), chemical analysis of part of each sample, fully blinded controls, careful photography of the sample areas, from both sides, in different kind of light, including x-ray, full video and independent withness survey of the whole process, etc.

Then, at least, they would have to dream up an entire new array of excuses.

Or, we could just ignore them.....

Hans

 

[Acleron]

I've often wondered why the pro-authenticity proponents didn't manage to convince the Vatican that the massive restoration in 2002 wasn't the perfect opportunity to obtain material under the most stringent conditions to perform a C14 dating.

It wouldn't be because the Vatican accepts the findings of those three labs, would it?

I've seen a claim that the Vatican only agreed in the first place because STURP convinced them that it would verify the antiquity of the shroud. Whether they accept the results or not, if that claim is correct, they would be unlikely to allow a repeat. But I've seen no evidence to back that claim.

 

[pakeha]

^
An interesting claim, Acleron.

Well, I basically agree, but ... if I were to design the next C14 test, I would preempt all their reservations, i.e:

Randomized samples from different parts of the shroud (since the first test, we have aquired technology that can produce reliable results from much smaller samples), chemical analysis of part of each sample, fully blinded controls, careful photography of the sample areas, from both sides, in different kind of light, including x-ray, full video and independent withness survey of the whole process, etc.....

All of this could have been done during the 2002 restoration.
I wonder why it wasn't.

 

[Dinwar]

^
An interesting claim, Acleron.



All of this could have been done during the 2002 restoration.
I wonder why it wasn't.

Simple: It's so far above and beyond standard protocols that no one would have considered it. What WAS done was absurdely above and beyond standard protocols. Frankly, if the C14 sampling done previously (perhaps the most well-documented sample ever taken in archaeology) wasn't good enough nothing is ever going to be, and it's a waste of time to attempt to improve it.

Again, I've taken archaeological samples for C14 dating. It consisted of me in a trench--often alone, with no one watching--scraping some charcoal into a film canister. I gave it to the guy in charge of the dig, and he filled out the chain of custody and shipped them to the lab. The lab took care of the quality control protocols (basically running random standards to ensure the accuracy of the results). This is all fully controlled, but the documentation isn't anywhere near what it was for the shroud sample--no sample documentation is ever that complete. There's simply never time or budget for it, and it's all superfluous anyway.

Most archaeological documentation isn't even that precise. It frequently consists of a few photographs, some lat/long or UTM coordinates, and a field notebook. That's it--for 90%+ of archaeological artifacts. I'll grant you that C14 dating has special requirements for documentation (gotta have sample IDs, for example), but still, when you look at how archaeologists work day in and day out you quickly realize that the documentation for the shroud samples was unreal.

Trying to improve upon the standards of documentation performed during the shroud sampling is akin to trying to purify 99.9999999% pure argon--there's no point, and anyone who asks you do to it doesn't understand what they're talking about anyway.

 

[Acleron]

Simple: It's so far above and beyond standard protocols that no one would have considered it. What WAS done was absurdely above and beyond standard protocols. Frankly, if the C14 sampling done previously (perhaps the most well-documented sample ever taken in archaeology) wasn't good enough nothing is ever going to be, and it's a waste of time to attempt to improve it.

Again, I've taken archaeological samples for C14 dating. It consisted of me in a trench--often alone, with no one watching--scraping some charcoal into a film canister. I gave it to the guy in charge of the dig, and he filled out the chain of custody and shipped them to the lab. The lab took care of the quality control protocols (basically running random standards to ensure the accuracy of the results). This is all fully controlled, but the documentation isn't anywhere near what it was for the shroud sample--no sample documentation is ever that complete. There's simply never time or budget for it, and it's all superfluous anyway.

Most archaeological documentation isn't even that precise. It frequently consists of a few photographs, some lat/long or UTM coordinates, and a field notebook. That's it--for 90%+ of archaeological artifacts. I'll grant you that C14 dating has special requirements for documentation (gotta have sample IDs, for example), but still, when you look at how archaeologists work day in and day out you quickly realize that the documentation for the shroud samples was unreal.

Trying to improve upon the standards of documentation performed during the shroud sampling is akin to trying to purify 99.9999999% pure argon--there's no point, and anyone who asks you do to it doesn't understand what they're talking about anyway.

Totally agree.

We are only exploring what would satisfy a denier of the present results, not doubting them. My own take is that nothing will satisfy them except a result they agree with. The way they fell on Rodger's c**p vanillin results demonstrates their lack of rigour.

 

[pakeha]

^
That's about as definitive as is possible to get.
Thanks for putting it into perspective, Dinwar.
Breakfast time!

 

[Garrette]

Trying to improve upon the standards of documentation performed during the shroud sampling is akin to trying to purify 99.9999999% pure argon--there's no point, and anyone who asks you do to it doesn't understand what they're talking about anyway.

So..... you're saying the C14 tests could be wrong.

[/believer]

 

[tsig]

^
An interesting claim, Acleron.



All of this could have been done during the 2002 restoration.
I wonder why it wasn't.

$$$$$$$$

 

[Jabba]

Effective Debate

- So's you don't have to go to the Dan Porter blog, this is my latest post over there.
--- Jabba



Daveb and Ron,

- You’re both right, of course…

- Let’s see if I can explain why I wish to continue in the Randi forum, in spite of the situation over there. (I know that I’ll sound like some kind of nut, but I honestly believe what I’m about to say… Or at least, I honestly believe that I believe what I’m about to say.)
- My first general reason for wanting to continue is HOW IMPORTANT I perceive my two basic goals to be. I think that
1) A METHOD FOR ENSURING ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY,
2) AS WOULD A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE THAT THE SHROUD IS PROBABLY GENUINE…
- My second general reason is that I think that both are quite possible…

- Now, even though most of the posts from my opponents over on the Randi forum are basically just insults, some of the posts include “accusations” that seem at least somewhat reasonable. I had wanted to unearth the reasonable accusations against Shroud authenticity, and see if we could effectively refute them — and these guys are happy to spell out just what the accusations are.
- And then, there is at least one guy over there that seems to be genuinely seeking the truth
about the Shroud — and others that might be close. If I can give them some good answers to their reservations, they might actually begin to rethink. I think that would be a giant step in the right direction.
- Also, they are somewhat correct about my inability to present satisfactory evidence myself – just that I have a lot of excuses and these guys don’t recognize (or admit?) the validity of my excuses…
- Probably, my Number One excuse, is the exponential growth of responses to which I need, or at least wish, to respond. Whatever my response, it tends to trigger numerous new, often provocative, responses . I keep thinking that if I can just stay on point — instead of being seduced off the trail, we will eventually make some progress…
- Unfortunately, even responding to you guys takes me off point…

- And then,
1. The Randi forum seems to be an extremely popular and respected (by skeptics) advocate for skepticism in general.
2. The aim of my method for debate is not to enlighten my opponents. My aim is to attract a large audience, and enlighten THEM.
3. I think that if we can develop just a SLIGHTLY effective debate between us and those on the Randi forum, we have the beginnings of something important. That is,
3.1. I can’t fully impose my method on their current forum – so, even if I’m right about the overall method, I can’t expect to directly accomplish a whole lot over there, as things stand.
3.2. But then, if I can show just a little bit of “progress” (defined below) over there, and keep working on it, I might eventually be able to convince the administrators over there to allow for an experimental thread using my suggested method.
3.3. Maybe, I could convince Dan, or another one of our leaders to “sponsor” such a debate in front of a large audience on whatever website.
3.4. Whatever, I sure think that someone with some influence needs to be researching the possibility of ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE.

(“Progress” being the explicit isolation of BASIC disagreements — where the two sides don’t have anything further to add re the particular, specific, disagreement, and can thereby agree to disagree for now re that particular disagreement – thereby, allowing the audience to best judge that particular disagreement for themselves. Progress does not require “enlightenment” of one of the opponents.)

- I’d best get back on point.
- Thanks.
— Rich

 

[MRC_Hans]

Trying to improve upon the standards of documentation performed during the shroud sampling is akin to trying to purify 99.9999999% pure argon--there's no point, and anyone who asks you do to it doesn't understand what they're talking about anyway.

Here is the crunch.

Hans

 

[Akhenaten]

- So's you don't have to go to the Dan Porter blog, this is my latest post over there.

<snip>

Exactly as most of us pointed out before you started - you have neither the intent nor the ability to honestly represent the situation here.

That post is an utter disgrace.


Although, given that the post was originally made in a place where enlightened discussion such as the following appears:

But why would anyone waste time engaging debate with close-minded cynics hiding behind a pseudonym of open-minded scepticism? None so blind as those who will not see. Doubtless every single contributor at JREF is capable of reproducing the Shroud image with all its properties? Hah! More likely, not a single one of them, nor anyone else for that matter!

Well said Dave! I’ve ventured on JREF a few times and read many of the comments by these so called “open-minded” folk, and all I can say is they are FAR from being open-minded, let alone intelligent enough to attempt producing the image or even simply explaining it. They are nothing else but swelled-headed athiests.

it will probably be lapped up enthusiastically despite its being a semi-coherent and factually incorrect load of pretentious waffle.

 

[jond]

Seriously, Jabba, this is just embarrassing. You are not going to convince anyone who is remotely skeptical that the shroud is "authentic". Even if, by some (ahem) miracle, you manage to prove the C14 dating is wrong, there is ZERO possibility of getting anywhere near a scientific conclusion that the shroud is the burial cloth of a guy who we can't even prove existed! There is ZERO scientific evidence that is close to "authenticity". There is, however, a wealth of scientific evidence that the shroud is a fraud. Just let it go, for goodness sake. Enjoy your belief, but stop wasting your life trying to prove this thing is "authentic".

 

[Olowkow]

Open minded scholar:But why would anyone waste time engaging debate with close-minded cynics hiding behind a pseudonym of open-minded scepticism? None so blind as those who will not see. Doubtless every single contributor at JREF is capable of reproducing the Shroud image with all its properties? Hah! More likely, not a single one of them, nor anyone else for that matter!

Excellent question. Insanity? Trolling? Religious fervor? OCD? Nothing better to do?

 

[Akhenaten]

Excellent question. Insanity? Trolling? Religious fervor? OCD? Nothing better to do?

Given that the test we must each pass to demonstrate the bona fides of our arguments is to reproduce the shroud I think the answer is probably:

f. all of the above.​

 

[Olowkow]

They are nothing else but swelled-headed athiests.

No, it was the "swelled headed atheists forum" that essentially shut Jabba down by closing all his threads. This is the "irritating skeptics" forum, and he has not been shunned, rather he has been by and large taken seriously.

I wish good old Ron would sign on here and tell us what he "really" thinks of us.

 

[Olowkow]

Doubtless every single contributor at JREF is capable of reproducing the Shroud image with all its properties? Hah! More likely, not a single one of them, nor anyone else for that matter!

Aw, come on....I'm sure each and every one of us has produced brown stains on our sheets at one time or another.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

I guess I'll just jump in here to note that even if you totally disproved the accuracy of carbon dating, it still doesn't prove the authenticity of the shroud, that it was indeed the burial shroud of a Jesus that was alleged to be the Christ, or his alleged miraculous deeds.

So you still have that tough row to hoe.

Resume,
- Agreed.
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

A METHOD FOR ENSURING ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY,

No, it wouldn't. Science IS a way of ensuring actually effective debate--it ensures that eventually the truth of the matter will be found. It works on some very simple principles: before you can say anything you must have evidence to back it up, you must say it publically and open it to criticism, etc. This is nothing more than you petulantly squalling about it being unfair because it won't allow you your flights of fantasy.

AS WOULD A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE THAT THE SHROUD IS PROBABLY GENUINE…

Not really. As I said before, even if you could probe that it's from the correct time period you still have a huge number of issues to overcome--including little things like the fact that it contradicts the Bible (the cloth around Jesus' head was separate from the rest). So even if the C14 dating actually said it's from the 1st century AD it won't matter--it's still not proof that your favorize zombie is real.

And then, there is at least one guy over there that seems to be genuinely seeking the truth about the Shroud

I doubt you're capable of evaluating that. I was genuinely seeking the truth about the shroud--so I examined the evidence, something you appear categorically incapable of doing (in some cases you don't know enough to evaluate it, and in others you're unwilling to honestly examine the evidence). Yet you seem to think I'm not actually seeking the truth, and that your continued attempts to turn science into a cheap procedural cop drama ARE. It's gotten to the point where it's simply ludacrise.

2. The aim of my method for debate is not to enlighten my opponents. My aim is to attract a large audience, and enlighten THEM.

So you're a carnival freak show rather than a scientist.

I think that if we can develop just a SLIGHTLY effective debate between us and those on the Randi forum, we have the beginnings of something important.

I've told you, repeatedly, what the standards for debate are in science. This isn't something I came up with--it's what the greatest minds to ever consider the question have concluded. Furthermore, your idea of an effective debate is to draw crowds and mine is to find facts. They are incompatable.

You're openly stating that you want to turn a scientific debate into a freak show, Jabba. Do you have any concept of how insulting that is? The fact that you think such insanity is an effective debate, but that a discussion focused on evidence is not, further demonstrates that you're too ignorant of the topics at hand to hold informed opinions on them. I'm sorry, but none of your evaluations--NONE OF THEM--are worth anything in this debate, including your evaluation of the effectiveness of the debate style. You are demonstrably wrong.