Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Garrette]

Like so many purveyors of nonsense, Jabba is persistently portraying this as if it starts neutrally, i.e., that the question of authenticity is a ball squarely in the middle of the field, and the winning side is the one who pushes it to their goal first.

As we know, this is not the case. There is no neutral field; there are two positive claims. First, that the shroud is from the time of the biblical Jesus. Second, that the shroud was actually the biblical Jesus' burial shroud.

Despite being repeatedly told that it is not so, Jabba pretends both claims are the same. More importantly he ignores that the entire burden of proof is on him. If you claim the shroud is x years old, then show the evidence that it is x years old.

Actually, it is possibly to use a semi-courtroom analogy, but not the trial itself. Instead, consider a motion in judge's chambers to stipulate relevant experts. No drama, no show, just the judge considering the claim.

Jabba: Your Honor, Rogers, Benford and Marino are experts.

Judge: What are their qualifications?

Jabba: These papers.

Judge: These aren't peer-reviewed.

Jabba: The information included is damning to the anti-authenticity crowd.

Judge: First, no it's not, as your opponent has ably shown. Second, it is irrelevant. I asked for qualifications of expertise and pointed out that the papers are not peer reviewed.

Jabba: They get cited a lot by Sindologists.

Judge: What about non-Sindologists?

Jabba: They get cited a lot by Sindologists.

Judge: I decline to recognize these people as experts.

Jabba: But I have no case without them.

Judge: Then nothing has changed. You have no case with them, either.

 

[Resume]

Quite tedious of course, but maybe we’ll actually get somewhere.
--- Jabba

Considering the post and page count, that's optimistic. You've typed yourself into a corner here, yet you can't seem to find your way out. It's easy, just admit your shroud belief is nothing more than blind faith in an artifact that has no objective evidence in favor of its authenticity.

Again, even if you were to magically prove the c14 error you cling to, that would do zero to authenticate the fraud, I mean shroud. Nor would it authenticate anything much surrounding the alleged life of the body of the person you allege it covered.

So what's your point?

 

[carlitos]

I googled "Sindologist" and found this. http://cheezburger.com/1878159104

Is the study of burial shrouds a real discipline or is it a fake one like cereology (study of crop circles)?

(Interesting that google chrome spellchecker doesn't like "googled" as a verb)

 

[catsmate]

- Borrowing from Catsmate (not quite verbatim), the following is a suggested beginning outline for YOUR side of this story. Please let me know if you have additions, or changes, otherwise.

No. You are the one claiming the shroud is real therefore you provide the evidence for this.
Otherwise admit you're wrong.

Hold on just one second. You are blatantly telling us that you intend to plagiarise Catsmate, but also that you will change the words, but also that you will not identify what you changed and why (as demonstrated in the rest of your post). Right

Can we really be surprised at the antics of Jabba/Rich?

I hope nobody will engage with this swill.

Well I'll continue to expose Jabba's evasions, deceptions and outright lies.

 

[catsmate]

An additional minor point about the radiocarbon dating and the shroudies' ludicrous claims of magic contamination: in 2010 the journal Radiocarbon (a journal that the shroudies' haven't managed to get their nonsense published in) published "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin" (Timothy Jull and Rachel Freer-Waters, University of Arizona) In the (peer reviewed) paper they described how they had microscopically examined part of the sample cut from the Shroud of Turin and supplied to the University for radiocarbon dating. They found no evidence for any contamination, particularly in the form of coatings or dyeing, in the material of the sample. They concluded that they could find no reason to dispute the original radiocarbon measurements which, in 1988, had shown the Shroud to be dated between 1260 and 1390.
Real sample.
Real science.
Real journal.
An example to the shroudies.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Borrowing from Catsmate (not quite verbatim), the following is a suggested beginning outline for YOUR side of this story. Please let me know if you have additions, or changes, otherwise.

This reminds me of someone talking to an imaginary friend.

It's pretty tragic.

<snip>

- I’ll try to carry the ongoing debate, both sides, on my website, but present each addition over here as they’re added. I'll be trying to focus on one "branching" at a time.

And this reminds me of someone having a debate with an imaginary friend.

- Quite tedious of course, but maybe we’ll actually get somewhere.
--- Jabba

We're already in the only place we're ever going to be.

The SoT is a 14th century fake and you will never be able to accept that this is the case.

That's all she wrote.

 

[Garrette]

Real sample.
Real science.
Real journal.

There's yer problem.

[/believer]

 

[zooterkin]

- Quite tedious

Yup.

 

[Aepervius]

I googled "Sindologist" and found this. http://cheezburger.com/1878159104

Is the study of burial shrouds a real discipline or is it a fake one like cereology (study of crop circles)?

(Interesting that google chrome spellchecker doesn't like "googled" as a verb)

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sindology

There is a wiki and dictioanry entry...

If it is a real discipline we should stop naming the turin shroud fantasologist with such a name. It would be an affront and insult to real practitioner of the art.

 

[Craig B]

I'm looking forward to seeing what you turn up. [about the alleged coin images on the eyes of the person depicted on the Shroud] Have you noticed how many pro-authenticity arguments hinge upon promising ideas that fizzle out?

There was a flap about these coins in 1997, but the images - magnifications of portions of the Shroud - were very obscure and ambiguous. Some enthusiasts are sustaining the argument that coins of Pontius Pilate have left images on the Shroud where they were used to close the eyes of the person depicted. But only the most extreme ones are keeping the faith. Here's one.

Scientists have found 2 coins embedded on Shroud of Turin over the eyes of Jesus dating back to 29 AD and 36 AD. These coins are like the common penny we use now a days ... These facts are not made up in fact they come from what scientists have found on The Shroud ... I believe this cloth was left behind especially for all the scientists who believe in the evolution theory and that we come from monkeys. Come on are you kidding me? Why can’t scientist explain the hospital cases when someone is critically dying with no chance to live but yet fully recover through the help of prayer.

http://shroudofturinnews.com/shroud-of-turin/

 

[pgwenthold]

Craig - my response:

Huh? I don't even know what that means!

 

[pakeha]

There was a flap about these coins in 1997, but the images - magnifications of portions of the Shroud - were very obscure and ambiguous. Some enthusiasts are sustaining the argument that coins of Pontius Pilate have left images on the Shroud where they were used to close the eyes of the person depicted. But only the most extreme ones are keeping the faith. Here's one. http://shroudofturinnews.com/shroud-of-turin/

Fascinating.

I googled "Sindologist" and found this. http://cheezburger.com/1878159104

Is the study of burial shrouds a real discipline or is it a fake one like cereology (study of crop circles)?

(Interesting that google chrome spellchecker doesn't like "googled" as a verb)

Are you familiar with the Shroud University?
http://shrouduniversity.com/
Enjoy!

 

[Craig B]

Fascinating.

The site also has some fascinating things to say about the C14 dating, but alas no sources of information - peer-reviewed or otherwise - are offered.

They all concluded that the material came from 1260 – 1390 AD. This threw off all theories that the shroud was authentic because Jesus lived around 29 AD. It was later found that the samples were tampered with and the scientists that conducted the testing broke proper scientific protocol. It seems that a good attempt was made to try to make the shroud look like a fake.

So that's the dating dismissed. Even Jabba doesn't go that far. Or does he? Time will tell.

 

[abaddon]

Well I'll continue to expose Jabba's evasions, deceptions and outright lies.

OK fair point,

 

[pakeha]

The site also has some fascinating things to say about the C14 dating, but alas no sources of information - peer-reviewed or otherwise - are offered. So that's the dating dismissed. Even Jabba doesn't go that far. Or does he? Time will tell.

Actually, yes, he does.
In any case, all pro-authenticity advocates I've read up til now do the same.
They literally dismiss the C14 dating, clutching at any straw to substantiate their POV.
Remember the Russian scammer Dimitri Kouznetsov?
In case you don't, here's a sampling:

Rinaldi painstakingly conducted a fascinating investigation which takes more than forty pages in Scienza & Paranormale (43, May/June 2002), the magazine of CICAP, the Italian skeptics. It is impossible here to give all the details of this incredible episode, but from what we have seen already it appears that the famous experiments that seemed to “save” the Shroud were a complete fabrication. Kouznetsov was repeatedly invited to defend himself, but so far he has refused to do so. Meanwhile, the sindonologists are quietly removing any reference to his work from their Web sites and papers. Does this mean that they now accept the 1988 carbon dating?

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/case_of_the_holy_fraudster/

Others have suggested that the silver of the molten reliquiary and the water used to douse the flames may have catalysed the airborne carbon into the cloth.[54] The Russian Dmitri Kouznetsov, an archaeological biologist and chemist, claimed in 1994 to have managed to experimentally reproduce this purported enrichment of the cloth in ancient weaves, and published numerous articles on the subject between 1994 and 1996.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] Kouznetsov's results could not be replicated, and no actual experiments has been able to validate this theory, so far.[63] Professor Gian Marco Rinaldi and others proved that Kouznetsov never performed the experiments described in his papers, citing non-existent fonts and sources, including the museums from which he claimed to have obtained the samples of ancient weaves on which he performed the experiments.[64][65][66][67] The Russian was arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports.[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

A few Shroud researchers, who for a short while embraced Kouznetsov’s finding, were embarrassed. But the claim that scorching heat affected the carbon dating lives on in web site after web site. The Internet has an amazing propensity for replicating bad information.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/Kouznetsov.html

And now for references over the web that still cite the man as a legimate source of information:

The two chemists also offer a considered criticism of the Radiocarbon tests performed in 1988 and which purport to date the Shroud at around 1300 A.D.

An accompanying essay gives a background for the science presented in the interview, describes the very strange optics of the Shroud, and reveals the recent experiments performed by two Russian scientists, Drs. Dmitri Kouznetsov and Andrey Ivanov.

http://www.amazon.ca/Shroud-Turin-C-14-Dating-Fiasco/dp/0964831015

The Fire-Model Tests of Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov in 1994 and Dr. John Jackson and Propp in 1998, which replicated the famous Fire of 1532, demonstrate that the fire added carbon isotopes to the linen.

http://avemaria.bravepages.com/articles/nov/shroud.html#CARBON

Dr. Dimitri Kouznetsov of the Sedov Biopolymer Research Laboratory in Moscow has conducted experiments on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating of samples previously exposed to intense heat. Dr. Kouznetsov acquired an ancient linen cloth with origin in Israel, radiocarbon dated to 200 CE. The cloth was exposed to intense heat in the presence of silver, after which it radiocarbon dated 1400 years later! Dr. Kouznetsov attributes this to biofractionalization and the chemical bonding, under heat, of extrinisic C14 to the linen. I will qualify that there are those who question Dr. Kouznetsov's scientific expertise and methodology.

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

Moreover, in 1995 the Russian scholar Dmitri Kouznetsov came to the conclusion that the 1532 fire had modified the present radioactive carbon amount in the Shroud, altering its dating.

http://www.shroud.it/ANSA-2.HTM

And on and on.
Like the water damage idea and the biological polymer canard, this scammer's bit of work are still circulating in the pro-authencity world.
And used to dismiss the C14 dating of the TS.

Just look at the long life the 'patch' idea had and incredibly enough, continues to have.
It only further confirms my opinion the pro-authencity people are cut of the same cloth as chem-trail believers.

As far as I'm concerned, the subject is barely this side of a conspiracy theory.

 

[catsmate]

Actually, yes, he does.
In any case, all pro-authenticity advocates I've read up til now do the same.
They literally dismiss the C14 dating, clutching at any straw to substantiate their POV.
Remember the Russian scammer Dimitri Kouznetsov?
In case you don't, here's a sampling:


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/case_of_the_holy_fraudster/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin


http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/Kouznetsov.html

And now for references over the web that still cite the man as a legimate source of information:


http://www.amazon.ca/Shroud-Turin-C-14-Dating-Fiasco/dp/0964831015


http://avemaria.bravepages.com/articles/nov/shroud.html#CARBON


http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm


http://www.shroud.it/ANSA-2.HTM

And on and on.
Like the water damage idea and the biological polymer canard, this scammer's bit of work are still circulating in the pro-authencity world.
And used to dismiss the C14 dating of the TS.

Just look at the long life the 'patch' idea had and incredibly enough, continues to have.
It only further confirms my opinion the pro-authencity people are cut of the same cloth as chem-trail believers.

As far as I'm concerned, the subject is barely this side of a conspiracy theory.

If I may repeat myself:

Ah Kouznetsov. Creationist, wooster, liar, fraudster and criminal. Even the CSF have disassociated themselves from him. And his imaginary journals..........

but still the shroudies cite him.
But what can you expect? Jabba's resurrected the Max Frei pollen claims that have been long since exposed as rubbish............

 

[pakeha]

Yes, catsmate1, you ARE the poster who introduced us to the egregious Russian.
And so much more!

I'm simply stunned by the half-life that nonsense has had amongst the faithful.
That's why I compare them to chem-trail believers.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, catsmate1, you ARE the poster who introduced us to the egregious Russian.
And so much more!

I'm simply stunned by the half-life that nonsense has had amongst the faithful.
That's why I compare them to chem-trail believers.

Actually I'd forgotten about Kouznetsov, your posts back in August were more comprehensive anyway.

And I met a real, live, chemtrail believer recently.

 

[pakeha]

Cheers, catsmate1.
I have two colleagues who firmly believe in chem-trails.
And more things.
Sometimes I buy them drinks on breaks just hear what they believe in at any given moment.

And yes, I've asked them about the TS.
They are firmly convinced by the pollen 'findings'.

 

[Akhenaten]

You pair have, with humour, aplomb and due diligence, made this thread into a worthy reference.

Many thanks, and kudos to you both.