Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
4.1 Untrue
4.2 Actually true, if completely irrelevent.
4.3 Untrue
4.4 Untrue
7. Untrue
8. Untrue
9. Untrue
10. Blatant lie, I've listed many other points
11. Also untrue, even though most of those involved were STURP members or otherwise selected by the RCC
12. Untrue
16. Also not true, the stitching is "similar"
17. Repetition of Max Frei's lies
18. Oh good grief this is just stupid
19. ????
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Acleron
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,290
The purpose of publishing a list of silly claims such as this is purely to flood any conversation with nonsense. I wish it was self defeating but unfortunately, I can almost guarantee that list will be spewed up at some future point in some debate. That's if it isn't just a copy and paste job and this is the regurgitation.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating/Argument Against/Outline
- The following is the latest, rough outline of my case. Further breakdowns -- and sources -- will come later.
- I claim that the probability of there being a flaw in the carbon dating is significantly greater than the probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate portrayal.
1. The scientific PROCESSES surrounding the carbon dating were, themselves, suspect.
1.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
1.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
1.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
1.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
1.1.4. (This corner, and one other corner, would be the worst possible representatives of the greater shroud except for the obvious patches.)
1.1.5. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
1.1.6. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
1.1.7. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures. There were no observers, or video, of the final sorting.
1.1.8. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
1.1.9. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”
1.2. (Statistics)
1.3. (Weight)
1.4. (something else...)
1.5. (Emotionality and Bias)
1.6. There had been no chemical or physical testing to make sure that the sample was truly representative of the greater shroud.
1.7. But, in 2004, Ray Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
1.8. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.9. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.10. Carbon dating is not foolproof, whatever, and is only part of the evidence.
2. The probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate piece of art approaches zero.
2.1. Despite the Shroud being at least 600 years old, and one of the most studied ancient artifacts of all time, it still cannot be fully reproduced, or explained, by modern artists or scientists.
2.2. There is significant HISTORICAL evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.3. There is significant SCIENTIFIC evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.4. The evidence we have NECESSITATES the conclusion that the image on the Shroud is SOME SORT OF IMPRINT of a recently tortured and crucified human being.
2.4.1. There are scientifically accurate aspects of the image and “bloodstains” of such a victim that a 14th century artisan would not know about, be able to see, be able to depict or have reason to depict.
2.4.2. It is not a painting.
2.4.3. It includes real blood that was not painted on.
2.5. The evidence we have ALMOST necessitates the conclusion that the recently tortured and crucified human body actually WAS that of the Biblical Jesus.
2.5.1. This body was wounded precisely as was the Biblical Jesus – in some instances contrary to tradition and art, but consistent with the Bible and science.
2.5.2. In other words, a would-be forger would need to be sociopathic, have an expert’s understanding of the critical passages of the Bible, be willing to ignore accepted traditions and be able to inflict all the appropriate wounds and abrasions.
2.6. If the statements above are true, we are forced to consider the following:
2.6.1. How likely is it that someone would choose to do this?
2.6.2. How likely is it that this person would be able to do it
2.6.3. How likely is it that someone in the 14th century would be able to do it so accurately?
2.6.4. How likely is it that “he” would KNOW HOW TO CAUSE THIS BODY TO LEAVE AN IMPRINT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
2.6.5. How likely is it that he would create such a perfect image on his first try? And,
2.6.6. And, how likely is it that he would resort to multiple attempts?
- Hey! Hey! Hey!
--- Jabba
- The following is the latest, rough outline of my case. Further breakdowns -- and sources -- will come later.
- I claim that the probability of there being a flaw in the carbon dating is significantly greater than the probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate portrayal.
1. The scientific PROCESSES surrounding the carbon dating were, themselves, suspect.
1.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
1.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
1.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
1.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
1.1.4. (This corner, and one other corner, would be the worst possible representatives of the greater shroud except for the obvious patches.)
1.1.5. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
1.1.6. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
1.1.7. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures. There were no observers, or video, of the final sorting.
1.1.8. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
1.1.9. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”
1.2. (Statistics)
1.3. (Weight)
1.4. (something else...)
1.5. (Emotionality and Bias)
1.6. There had been no chemical or physical testing to make sure that the sample was truly representative of the greater shroud.
1.7. But, in 2004, Ray Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
1.8. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.9. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.10. Carbon dating is not foolproof, whatever, and is only part of the evidence.
2. The probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate piece of art approaches zero.
2.1. Despite the Shroud being at least 600 years old, and one of the most studied ancient artifacts of all time, it still cannot be fully reproduced, or explained, by modern artists or scientists.
2.2. There is significant HISTORICAL evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.3. There is significant SCIENTIFIC evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.4. The evidence we have NECESSITATES the conclusion that the image on the Shroud is SOME SORT OF IMPRINT of a recently tortured and crucified human being.
2.4.1. There are scientifically accurate aspects of the image and “bloodstains” of such a victim that a 14th century artisan would not know about, be able to see, be able to depict or have reason to depict.
2.4.2. It is not a painting.
2.4.3. It includes real blood that was not painted on.
2.5. The evidence we have ALMOST necessitates the conclusion that the recently tortured and crucified human body actually WAS that of the Biblical Jesus.
2.5.1. This body was wounded precisely as was the Biblical Jesus – in some instances contrary to tradition and art, but consistent with the Bible and science.
2.5.2. In other words, a would-be forger would need to be sociopathic, have an expert’s understanding of the critical passages of the Bible, be willing to ignore accepted traditions and be able to inflict all the appropriate wounds and abrasions.
2.6. If the statements above are true, we are forced to consider the following:
2.6.1. How likely is it that someone would choose to do this?
2.6.2. How likely is it that this person would be able to do it
2.6.3. How likely is it that someone in the 14th century would be able to do it so accurately?
2.6.4. How likely is it that “he” would KNOW HOW TO CAUSE THIS BODY TO LEAVE AN IMPRINT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
2.6.5. How likely is it that he would create such a perfect image on his first try? And,
2.6.6. And, how likely is it that he would resort to multiple attempts?
- Hey! Hey! Hey!
--- Jabba
Every one of thse sub-issues has been addressed to a point where any rational person would say they've been adequately dealt with, and you're wrong.Jabba said:
Jabba, if you're going to use a Biblical argument you shoudl read the bloody book. The Bible SPECIFICALLY states that the head-cloth was a separate cloth from the rest of the burial cloth--so the Shroud of Turin is about as biblically accurate as "The Life of Brian". And the scientific aspects have been addressed--in brief, we know that the image is faided, the fact that blood was found on the cloth is not proof of anything, the person the shroud covered would have to be about 1/4 inch thick for the shroud to actually cover him, the shroud does not exhibit the paralax necessarily resulting from the image coming from something inside of it, etc. This has all been addressed, and any rational person would conclude that you are wrong.
This entire post also is nothing more than you finding a new way to say that you'll eventually tell us the evidence at some time. You capitalize all kinds of words, BUT OMIT ALL THE DATA YOU ALLUDE TO. Either provide that data, or admit you can't. Those are your options, in their entirety. If your next post doesn't include actual data, I will conclude that you have none and operate under that assumption for the remainder of this discussion.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You don't have a case.
Of course you claim that. It's all you've ever claimed.
So what.
Repeating that same claim in the form of a ridiculously repetetive, circular and long-winded list with a needlessly arcane numbering system does nothing at all in terms of making a case for that claim to be taken seriously.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
They support your claims with facts and evidence; stop wasting people's time with the same repetitive rubbish.
No.
Yes. So what?
Yes and you've been told by whom and why this decision was made.
Well duh. Three labs, three samples. This is just stupid.
Evidence for this claim?. Unlike you I've read all the variations on the sampling protocol and none mention taking multiple samples from the shroud. Justify your claim.
This was the area used for the 1973 samples.
There were no magic invisible patches.
This was a decision made by the cloth's owner, to reduce the amount of material that had to be removed.
But then you've been told all about this before.....
But they did work under the supervision of other textile experts didn't they?
This was part of the blinding process.
Untrue and irrelevant. Sufficient material was removed for analysis.
Also irrelevant except to the lunatic conspiracy theorists.
<snippage of nonsense>
No he didn't. Something that's already been explained to you multiple times.
No.
No.
Finally, something that's actually true!! And all the evidence points ot a medieval origin.
It's not biblically, scientifically or culturally accurate.
Blatant lie. It's been duplicated several times.
Supply it.
Supply it.
No. As you've had explained to you in painful detail all the evidence show's it's a medieval fake relic.
Untrue. And there is no evidence for blood on the shroud.
Yes it is.
A lie.
Only in the minds of the desperate believers.
Untrue.
Rubbish.
They aren't. They're a pack of pathetic lies.
All dealt with already
Now to summarise the actual evidence (not the fantasies of the shroudies) again.
1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure
2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)
3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355
9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue
Radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. accelerator mass spectroscopy
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
"These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval"
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Jabba. This is tiring.
Are you reading the post of people ? Yes or no ? If yes why are you dishing us again argument which have no scientific value or have been rebutted already ?
Are you reading the post of people ? Yes or no ? If yes why are you dishing us again argument which have no scientific value or have been rebutted already ?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Let's stipulate that all these are true. OK, yes.
Now, how does that lead to the 14C data measurements being wrong?
Connect the dots for us. For example, "No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures. This will cause the 14C data to be wrong because..."?
Or
"The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12 1/2. This will cause the 14C data to be wrong because...."?
So help me out and explain to me why all these things that you list should cause me to doubt the results of the 14C data. I will concede that the overall sample was reduced to 7 square centimeters. I also know why it was done. Now explain why it matters.
It's courtroom garbage. He's attempting to cast doubt on the researchers themselves, to make them appear incompatent. "If we can't trust these people to follow the procedure, how can we trust their results?!" Jabba has never admitted that attempting to force science into a procedural cop drama model doesn't work.
Complete waste of everyones time! The above are all things you have claimed before. They all amount to complete & utter nonsense which has been refuted numerous times before in this thread.
You have absolutely nothing new to say, and you have been totally and completely unable to produce any genuine independent scientists who disagrees in any way at all with the published C14 dates.
You remain impaled on the C14 dates. And you have no honest way of wriggling free (despite 80 pages of disingenuous and/or naively misguided and ill-informed squirming).
You have no honest independent evidence of a patch. And no such evidence to show anything at all wrong with the C14 dates.
Therefore - the C14 dates remain un-opposed, and the shroud is almost certainly relativity modern (like all the other numerous fraudulent Christian relics).
All you are doing here is preaching your blind faith.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Or corrupt.
That's why I want him to explain how it affects the results.
I want to see who is accusing, and what he is accusing them of doing.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It's obvious to me that Satan fooled with the instruments to made the date wrong in order to weaken peoples faith.
Occams' Razor!!
Acleron
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,290
A picture of the devil, now that makes a lot more sense.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
What a dilemma!
Well there is only one way to settle this. We have several members here at JREF who talk regularly with Jesus. Jesus tells them what to do, how to behave, and how to interpret world events. Let's just request that one of them ask Him if this is the wrap that was put on him when he went into the tomb. This will settle it once and for all.
Then we can all get back to thinking about the wonderful performance of Romney and MeatLoaf on stage.
I mean, the 1/3 creator of the universe surely should be able to remember what he was buried in, unless he really doesn't give a damn.
Well there is only one way to settle this. We have several members here at JREF who talk regularly with Jesus. Jesus tells them what to do, how to behave, and how to interpret world events. Let's just request that one of them ask Him if this is the wrap that was put on him when he went into the tomb. This will settle it once and for all.
Then we can all get back to thinking about the wonderful performance of Romney and MeatLoaf on stage.
I mean, the 1/3 creator of the universe surely should be able to remember what he was buried in, unless he really doesn't give a damn.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I'm looking forward to seeing the sources for all of these claims.
Me, too.
Is Jabba aware these claims amount to an accusation of the Archbishop of Turin?
- Status