Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

Hi there!

- I'm currently trying to put together the context of your claim that the carbon dating was valid – and also, of my claim that it wasn't. I'm sure that you have no interest in such things, and it's taking a long time anyway, so I'm thinking that I'll try going off on a "brief" tangent…

- Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment.
- We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating. I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list... I'm sure you don't want to listen to me, but I had to make those suggestions anyway….

- My smoking gun involves a few different pieces of evidence, and a line of what seems to me unassailable reasoning.
- In a sense, it “starts” with the claim that the image had to involve the use of a recently tortured and crucified human being. There are various reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but for me, the most telling is the interim conclusion that the image is covered with numerous imprints of wounds surrounded by serum clot retraction rings. If that conclusion is correct, we should be forced to then conclude that the image is an imprint of a real body of a recently tortured human being. The next two bits of evidence and attached reasoning concludes that the body was crucified, and that it had to be that of Jesus -- but, I'll save those for later.

- What I have so far are claims.
That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- Adler was referring to the research and paper done by Miller and Pellicori as presented in the J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981). I’ll see if I can find the actual paper in the NY State Education Library.

The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body. In summary, the arterial
and venous blood flows on the head; the different types of bruises and swelling identified on the face; the flow of watery fluid from the pleural cavity and of blood from the right auricle, which fills with blood on death; the photographically revealed abrasions at the knees, nose and across the shoulder blades; the abnormally expanded rib cage indicating asphyxia; the enlarged pectoral or chest muscles drawn in toward the collarbone and arms; the contraction of the thumbs from an injury to the median nerve; the unusual signs of traumatic shock; the numerous signs of rigor mortis; the post-mortem bleeding; the microscopically precise, invisible reactions around more than 100 scourge marks throughout the body; the coagulated blood stains with serum surrounding borders and clot retraction rings that occur with actual wounds and blood flows, found throughout the front and back of the technology; and the identification of human hemoglobin, human albumin, human whole blood serum, human immunoglobins, and human DNA from the man’s blood marks —
are just some of the signs that the Shroud wrapped the body of a dead human male (Antonacci, 2000).
http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
- In his book, Antonacci refers to several other documents.
- I’ll try to track those down if needs be.

--- Jabba

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

Would you please explain how the fact that there is no blood on the cloth that contains a depiction of a physically inaccurate figure of a non-anatomical human being; a cloth that was, apparently, NOT wrapped around the figure in question, and "blood stains" that could not have come from a dead, washed body, is a "smoking gun" AGAINST the ¹⁴C dates?

 

[wollery]

Hi there!

- I'm currently trying to put together the context of your claim that the carbon dating was valid – and also, of my claim that it wasn't. I'm sure that you have no interest in such things, and it's taking a long time anyway, so I'm thinking that I'll try going off on a "brief" tangent…

- Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment.
- We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating. I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list... I'm sure you don't want to listen to me, but I had to make those suggestions anyway….

- My smoking gun involves a few different pieces of evidence, and a line of what seems to me unassailable reasoning.
- In a sense, it “starts” with the claim that the image had to involve the use of a recently tortured and crucified human being. There are various reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but for me, the most telling is the interim conclusion that the image is covered with numerous imprints of wounds surrounded by serum clot retraction rings. If that conclusion is correct, we should be forced to then conclude that the image is an imprint of a real body of a recently tortured human being. The next two bits of evidence and attached reasoning concludes that the body was crucified, and that it had to be that of Jesus -- but, I'll save those for later.

- What I have so far are claims.
That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring (25) agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth (1,2,3). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- Adler was referring to the research and paper done by Miller and Pellicori as presented in the J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981). I’ll see if I can find the actual paper in the NY State Education Library.

The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body. In summary, the arterial
and venous blood flows on the head; the different types of bruises and swelling identified on the face; the flow of watery fluid from the pleural cavity and of blood from the right auricle, which fills with blood on death; the photographically revealed abrasions at the knees, nose and across the shoulder blades; the abnormally expanded rib cage indicating asphyxia; the enlarged pectoral or chest muscles drawn in toward the collarbone and arms; the contraction of the thumbs from an injury to the median nerve; the unusual signs of traumatic shock; the numerous signs of rigor mortis; the post-mortem bleeding; the microscopically precise, invisible reactions around more than 100 scourge marks throughout the body; the coagulated blood stains with serum surrounding borders and clot retraction rings that occur with actual wounds and blood flows, found throughout the front and back of the technology; and the identification of human hemoglobin, human albumin, human whole blood serum, human immunoglobins, and human DNA from the man’s blood marks —
are just some of the signs that the Shroud wrapped the body of a dead human male (Antonacci, 2000).
http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
- In his book, Antonacci refers to several other documents.
- I’ll try to track those down if needs be.

--- Jabba

How does any of that point to a first century date?

And if it doesn't, what does it have to do with whether or not the shroud is a forgery?

The most important factor is the date of the cloth. Even if you can prove definitively that the shroud was used to wrap a recently tortured and crucified body it is irrelevant.

What's important, nay crucial, is when that body was wrapped.

The only "smoking gun" for either side in this debate is the age of the shroud. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[pakeha]

Where are the sources?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jabba, but I'm quite sure everything you've mentioned has already been addressed not only here but on other forums you've anticipated in.

You challenged me once to find those posts and I listed them for you here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8545513&postcount=2848
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8545728&highlight=blood#post8545728
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8545945&postcount=2859


Here are a couple of the posts on the subject from this very thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8506974&postcount=2559
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8551290&postcount=2892

Why even post up premises which have been rebutted?
For the pleasure of reading them dismounted yet again?

But at the end of the day, how does any of this refute the C14 dating?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Pakeha,

- These posts do address the issue -- but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises. In order for me to address this more specifically, you’ll need to quote what precisely it is that you believe does rebut my premises.

- The claim about the retraction rings is important because if it is true, the probability that a 14th century artist could have forged the shroud without using a recently tortured human being approaches zero. If you want, I’ll explain why. And then, I'll explain how this is the beginning of a smoking gun that rebuts the C14 dating. One step at a time.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

Your smoking gun against C14 dating is something else entirely. Why am I not surprised? You have nothing with which to disprove the C14 dating, Jabba. Admit that, and admit that you're moving on to another topic, and you may regain a shred of respect. Pretending that switching topics wildly is anything but an attempt to hide the fact that you can't address the issues raised on the first topic is further dishonesty on your part.

The claim about the retraction rings is important because if it is true, the probability that a 14th century artist could have forged the shroud without using a recently tortured human being approaches zero.

Because no one was EVER tortured in the 14th century! Oh, wait--flagulation was a common religious practice in certain monastic institutions, meaning that not only was it something a forger would have easy access to, but the forger could easily have done it to himself, in full public view even. You know nothing of the culture you're discussing.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,

- These posts do address the issue -- but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises. In order for me to address this more specifically, you’ll need to quote what precisely it is that you believe does rebut my premises. ...

Very funny, Jabba.
Why not start with these two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2559
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2892

They're the most recent.
Once you've read them, show me how they don't refute your premise.

Then we'll go over the posts from the Atheist's Forum, if you need your memory refreshed.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
- Part of my scheme for effective debate is that each side should look for potential "smoking guns" for its side and focus on them first – which might preclude some of the predicted tedium. So, that's what I'll try to do for the moment.

No it's not. It's part of your attempt to evade proper debate and analysis of the issues.

<snip>

You claim to be limiting debate to the radiocarbon dating and immediately go off on a tangent.
Pathetic.

<snippage of much irrelevant nonsense>
The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body.

List these alleged experts, their qualifications, their access to, and analysis of, the shroud and their exact statements.
Otherwise stop wasting out time.
Remember, there is no evidence of blood on the shroud.

 

[catsmate]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

Would you please explain how the fact that there is no blood on the cloth that contains a depiction of a physically inaccurate figure of a non-anatomical human being; a cloth that was, apparently, NOT wrapped around the figure in question, and "blood stains" that could not have come from a dead, washed body, is a "smoking gun" AGAINST the ¹⁴C dates?

How does any of that point to a first century date?

And if it doesn't, what does it have to do with whether or not the shroud is a forgery?

The most important factor is the date of the cloth. Even if you can prove definitively that the shroud was used to wrap a recently tortured and crucified body it is irrelevant.

What's important, nay crucial, is when that body was wrapped.

The only "smoking gun" for either side in this debate is the age of the shroud. Everything else is irrelevant.

He's trying to pull a switch. Again.

Pakeha,

- These posts do address the issue -- but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises. In order for me to address this more specifically, you’ll need to quote what precisely it is that you believe does rebut my premises.

- The claim about the retraction rings is important because if it is true, the probability that a 14th century artist could have forged the shroud without using a recently tortured human being approaches zero. If you want, I’ll explain why. And then, I'll explain how this is the beginning of a smoking gun that rebuts the C14 dating. One step at a time.

--- Jabba

Rubbish. The alleged blood is irrelevant to the radiocarbon dating. Why not actually do what you claimed you were going to do and address that rather than attempting to pull another fast one?

 

[Agatha]

Pakeha,

- These posts do address the issue -- but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises. In order for me to address this more specifically, you’ll need to quote what precisely it is that you believe does rebut my premises.

- The claim about the retraction rings is important because if it is true, the probability that a 14th century artist could have forged the shroud without using a recently tortured human being approaches zero. If you want, I’ll explain why. And then, I'll explain how this is the beginning of a smoking gun that rebuts the C14 dating. One step at a time.

--- Jabba

Even if everything you claim about the shroud having blood on it was true, which I don't accept and for which you have not shown any evidence to support, there was very little preventing a 14th century artist from using a recently tortured (though anatomically incorrect) human being. This isn't any kind of refutation of the carbon dating.

I really don't think you understand the mores and culture of the 14th century in general, and European artists from that period in particular.

 

[Aepervius]

Hey jabba, look ! Another shroud with the blood of the christ.

http://vimeo.com/3281567


because we all know by your own reasonning that if a cloth has blood, no matter its 14C age, then it proves it was the Chrsit blood, the only source of blood EVER in the middle age and today.

 

[Aepervius]

And also people in the 14th century were complete retard and knew nothing of the christ wound description, they had no litterature source no book describing them, whereas we know better because we could read the english translation : the KJB.

I think I just stopped taking this thread seriously completely with last jabba utter nonsense.

The nearly unanimous conclusion of pathologists,physicians and anatomists Turinosindologist who studied the Shroud since the beginning of the 20th century is that the Shroud wrapped a dead human body.

Fixed that for you. Anybody with a modicum of understanding of basic pathology or geometry will tell you that there is no way a blanket put over a body would imprint like that. In fact it would deform on various aprt, and some limb part could not stay as they are like the arm. That's why some turinosindologist have to make up explanation like black hole to explain the projection problem

 

[pakeha]

Hey jabba, look ! Another shroud with the blood of the christ.

http://vimeo.com/3281567


because we all know by your own reasonning that if a cloth has blood, no matter its 14C age, then it proves it was the Chrsit blood, the only source of blood EVER in the middle age and today.

Hey, don't forget the relic at the Basilica of the Holy Blood!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Holy_Blood

It's on display three times day and quite the money-spinner from I could see when I was there in June.

 

[davefoc]

This is from an earlier post of mine about the scourge marks:

...

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-scourge-marks-surely-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

The author makes a few interesting points that provides daunting evidence against the notion that the "scourge marks" are scourge marks:
1. The claim in that the scourge marks were produced by Roman flagrum which was a whip that had little balls attached to the end of the whip cords. The portion of the whip cord between the little balls is allegedly visible in the shroud image but what is missing is any sign of the whip cord itself that is closer to the handle part of the whip than where the balls are. Somehow the person allegedly doing the whipping causes the end of the whip (including the balls and the whip cord between them) to touch the body of the victim without ever leaving an impression of the whip cord that lies nearer the handle than where the balls are attached.

2. His most devastating argument that the "scourge marks" are not scourge marks is his observation that the "scourge marks" lie on the body and and across the edge of the arms. This would only be possible if the victim held his arms the way they are shown in the shroud image while he was being whipped. Even then because the arms are not in the same plane as the chest the possibility of making "scourge marks" like those in the shroud is essentially zero.

...

It seems like the "scourge marks" provide pretty good evidence that the shroud image was the work of an artist. Do you (Jabba) reject what the author of the site linked to above is claiming? It does seem a bit strange that you would make a claim that the "scourge marks" constituted evidence of authenticity without dealing with the fact that the nature of their placement is prima facie evidence that the "scourge marks" were placed on a two dimensional cloth and were not transferred to the shroud from a three dimensional body.

Of course, as others have noted, all evidence that there is any actual blood on the shroud has been thoroughly debunked so making a claim that there is blood on the shroud without acknowledging that seems a bit strange as well.

When I first looked into the "scourge marks" I thought the claim was that Jesus was scourged while he was on the cross and I wondered why there wasn't some non scourged areas that were blocked by the wood of the cross. Now I understand that the Jesus was purportedly scourged as he walked along. With that assumption, does the placement of these "scourge marks" look remotely realistic to you? Imagine walking along while somebody is scourging you in the legs. Would you expect every blow to hit your legs at nearly the exact same angle to produce a similar mark all over your legs?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- We've already narrowed our focus to the CARBON DATING, so I'll focus on what seems to me the closest thing to a smoking gun against the validity of the dating.

The only things which could be a "smoking gun" against the C14 dating would be either flaws in the methodology, deliberate fraud on the part of those involved, or scientific data which disputes it. If you cannot establish any of these things with actual evidence, then you have no argument.

I'd suggest that you do the same for the validity of the dating -- you might want to make a list...

We don't need a list. The tests were rigorous and followed the scientific method. They are valid unless you can provide better evidence of one of the three things I outlined above.

Your diversion about blood rings is irrelevant.

 

[Dinwar]

How would one even go about making a list of proofs that the C14 dating is valid? The concept doesn't make sense. The process is widely known and has been discussed in detail in this thread. The science behind it is well-known and has been included via reference numerous times. There's not much else to discuss. If the methods are good, and the theory is sound, the results will be good.

but in my opinion, nowhere do they rebut my premises.

The highlighted part is irrelevant. Jabba, you've demonstrated time and time again that you simply are incapable or are unwilling to understand these topics. Your opinion is uninformed, and demonstrably so. And you can't call this an ad hom attack--your only justification for dismissing all of the evidence that the C14 dating is sound is your mere opinion, so your understanding of the system is a valid subject to analyze. Since you're incompetant as a radiometric dating researcher, your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[IanS]

The reason I mentioned it was because on one level it does seem to be hypocritical on my part.

I don't quite see it that way though. I would see the situation as one where there were two groups of facts each of which seemed to provide strong evidence for mutually exclusive possibilities. I believe I would have been very open to the possibility that there was something wrong with the evidence for either possibility.

To some degree, this goes to the minor disagreement I've had with the folks in this thread that see the C14 results as so reliable that it constitutes categorical proof of the medieval origin of the shroud. I think the evidence of a medieval origin of the shroud is categorical, and the C14 results are an important aspect of my view about that, but the C14 results by themselves would be insufficient for me to see the evidence as categorical.

There are at least three reasons why the C14 results could be wrong:
1. Collusion
2. Unknown problem with C14 dating accuracy
3. Errors during C14 testing

If the C14 test results had pointed to a first century date I would have seen the possibility of collusion as significant. People go to huge lengths to fake religious objects and the tourism value, alone, for the Turin with a shroud dated to the first century would have been enough to make me suspicious. In the current situation where the C14 test results point to a medieval date I am a lot less suspicious of the possibility of collusion because the incentives for collusion seem to be mostly at odds with the results.

Although, an unknown problem with C14 dating seems unlikely, there have been various problems discovered over the years with C14 testing and the possibility that there is another unknown one is not zero.

I don't think anyone here takes the view that the C14 is categorical proof. But the question is - how much confidence should you place on a scientific result such as the C14 compared to the confidence which you think should be placed on what is said and written by shroud believers?

Forget the C14 and the shroud for a moment, and lets take a step back to look at what people believed before they had relatively modern scientific answers - before modern science (say from around the time of Galileo) how much do you think people believed they knew about the world around them? The answer is that people believed they knew a great deal. They believed they knew it because of the inerrancy of God’s words (amongst other almost equally doubtful reasons).

But what happened when science came along? One by one, every single one of those earlier “facts” was shown to be wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but completely and utterly wrong in almost every conceivable detail.

Since then, say over the past 300 years, scientists have provided detailed explanations for how almost every conceivable thing in this universe actually works. A vast number of those explanations have been confirmed with mathematical precision to an almost mind bogglingly unimaginable extent. Even such esoteric things as the mathematical predictions of Quantum Theory and Relativity have been experimentally confirmed to as much as 10 decimal places and more.

So what? OK, so here’s “what” - whilst science has been busy explaining literally trillions of billions of things in the most astonishing and revealing detail, all other non-scientific approaches, have been wrestling with only a relatively tiny handful of much simpler problems, and frequently drawing conclusions which quickly turn out to be utter nonsense … especially when it comes to religious issues.

What has that to do with C14 and the shroud? Well, it’s the fundamental reason why the starting point for any honest educated person, should be to think that a properly conducted set of objective scientific tests (as the C14 certainly were) should be regarded in a wholly different league to the unsupported and un-publishable claims of what are (in this case) self interested religious fanatics who’s proclamations are following in exactly the same footsteps as all other religious fanatics, such as (for example) the Creationists who were exposed as liars, frauds, and religious nutcases in the Dover Trial.

That’s why you should not be imagining that there are “two opposing groups of experts on either side of the argument”. And it’s why you should be asking for shroud believers to restrict their claimed scientific evidence to work that they have genuinely published in well known mainstream science journals … and the answer to that request is that they have no such publications except the Ray Rogers paper. And I don’t suppose we need to explain again why that paper is so terribly unsatisfactory on almost every level imaginable.

 

[Dinwar]

To some degree, this goes to the minor disagreement I've had with the folks in this thread that see the C14 results as so reliable that it constitutes categorical proof of the medieval origin of the shroud.

It's ont categorical proof. I've given a number of ways it could be wrong, as have others here. It's just that every way it could be wrong has been shown to not have occurred. Therefore it's irrational to say that the date is wrong without providing evidence (it's irrational anyway, but it's more egregiously so here because the topic has been discussed to death).

The shroud sample is already held to much higher and tougher standards than any archaeological sample ever taken. I've given my personal experience taking archaeological samples as an illustration of standard procedure. To hold it to even higher standards--higher than the highest standards any sample has ever been held to--is simply stupid. It ignores the fact that much more important archaeological data is accepted despite having one-tenth the documentation, and worse, does so without even a shred of justification. There's no REASON to demand that the best-documented archaeo sample of all time be discarded as being not good enough. The very concept is insane.

And Jabba's made it clear that the only reason he's trying to do it is as a post-hoc justification to continue clinging to his a priori conclusions.

 

[pgwenthold]

And also people in the 14th century were complete retard and knew nothing of the christ wound description, they had no litterature source no book describing them, whereas we know better because we could read the english translation : the KJB.

I think I just stopped taking this thread seriously completely with last jabba utter nonsense.



Fixed that for you. Anybody with a modicum of understanding of basic pathology or geometry will tell you that there is no way a blanket put over a body would imprint like that. In fact it would deform on various aprt, and some limb part could not stay as they are like the arm. That's why some turinosindologist have to make up explanation like black hole to explain the projection problem

To pull a card out of Jabba's bag, has anyone been able to replicate the image on the shroud by wrapping a cloth around a body (dead or alive)?

 

[Aepervius]

To pull a card out of Jabba's bag, has anyone been able to replicate the image on the shroud by wrapping a cloth around a body (dead or alive)?

Nope. AFAIR when you do you have deformation, on top of the head, on the side, reason being similar to projection of earth onto a map. But if you except the color and pigment, the technic itself has been reproduced sucessfully. There is not enough information as somebody pointed out to do a 100% reproduction, I am guessing more chemical destructive analysis would be required which would almost certainly refused.

 

[Dinwar]

Demonstrating the image distortion should be easy enough--get a white cloth, a guy, and some green paint (well, any color would work, and chalk would work too). Put the green paint on the guy, have him lay on the cloth, then toss the cloth over his head, like it's shown in the shroud. Take it off, have him wash up, and look at the picture. That'd show what an image of an actual person wrapped in an actual cloth would look like. It won't tell you what an image of an actual person wrapped in a cloth like Jesus was supposed to have been wrapped in would look like--Jabba continues to ignore the fact that the Bible clearly states that the head-cloth was separate from the body, which conforms to known Jewish burial traditions of the time.

The next step is to have two people that look alike (twins?) lie on a flat cloth head-to-head, one facing up and one facing down. Or drape the cloth over them, either way. That's going to get you an image much closer to the shroud's.