Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wardenclyffe]

It wouldn't have to be twins, you could get the same guy to lie down one way and then the other.

The point is, I am not aware of any tradition in which a shroud is simply draped over a body as opposed to wrapped. Also, even if it were only draped, the image still requires something like the shroud stretched taut with the body floating between the two halves as is surmised in that black hole video.

Ward

 

[IanS]

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?

I haven't looked at what has been claimed about "scourge marks" on the shroud (you could look at such claims literally for ever!), but are these claimed marks even there? Do they even exist?

There are claims of all sorts of marks being discovered on the shroud, eg marks from Roman coins which even bear the 1st century date of the execution. Claims of letters forming words and a sentence effectively saying "This is the Burial cloth of Jesus Christ" ... but afaik, those marks do not really exist at all, or else they are so vague and tenuous that by no means do they show anything remotely like what is claimed.

Is it not the case that all manner of fanciful and untrue claims have been made by people believing they have seen various fuzzy and indistinct "marks" on the shroud? Why are we still discussing this stuff as if the claims had any honest merit left in them at all?

 

[David Mo]

Hi there!

(...)- 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
(...)
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
(...)--- Jabba

Jabba:

You provide us with an article that is a simple abstract of alleged scientific studies. Mr. Adler claims these studies are conclusive evidence that the red marks in the Shroud of Turin are human blood, arterial blood, with definite ADN, and so on. It is impossible to discuss an abstract. I think you are trying to change a profound debate by an authority argument with massive use (and abuse) of quotations. Although you make real discussion impossible some remarks about the authoritative value of Adler’s postulates are possible.

Mr. Adler doesn’t distinguish between relevant and irrelevant sources. Scientific publications and religious or sindonists (clearly biased) sources are quoted together.

Some scientific articles are very old. There are not reliable. For example, procedures for determinate the nature of ancient blood have evolved very much in the last decades. To quote an article about ancient blood of 1982 is hazardous. And many articles quoted are published in the eighties.

Mr. Antonacci writes as if the massive bibliography were “nearly unanimous”. This is not true. For example: Baima Bollone claims he have find the blood ADN, but Rogers denies it is possible determinate even the blood group. You can find more disagreements in the list.

Mr. Adler quotes different levels of quality without distinguishing them. For example, the evidence of serum based on UV photos is very weak. We know how Raymond Rogers based his support to “invisible mending” on this kind of interpretation and how empirical evidence refuted him.

Conclusion: If you want a discussion you ought to bring specific arguments. And valuable ones. To put a massive reference to a mishmash of claims stated by a well known sindonist is useless. This kind of arguing is successful in a sindonist forum. Not here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think we're all letting ourselves fall into Jabba's little Heffalump trap. He can't challenge the carbon 14 dating, so he's trying to shift the discussion to something else. And it's working. I don't think it should work. Let's not let him wriggle out of discussing what's not only the key point, but what he's already agreed several times that he will focus on.

 

[davefoc]

...
There are claims of all sorts of marks being discovered on the shroud, eg marks from Roman coins which even bear the 1st century date of the execution. Claims of letters forming words and a sentence effectively saying "This is the Burial cloth of Jesus Christ" ... but afaik, those marks do not really exist at all, or else they are so vague and tenuous that by no means do they show anything remotely like what is claimed.

...

What, you can't read the inscriptions on the coin images that are on the eyes?

And I suppose you are skeptical of the claim that the species of the flower depicted on the shroud can be determined?


I think it is reasonable to be a bit skeptical of the "scourge mark" "evidence" as actual evidence of either authenticity or fraud. I looked at the cloth closely and thought I could see what the people were talking about but I wasn't 100% sure. However, as I suggested above, if somebody was being scourged in the legs as he walked along I don't think the marks would look anything like the marks which have been identified as scourge marks. I guess the idea is that the guy wielding the scourge/whip is precisely flicking the cutting elements of the scourge into the individual's legs without ever making a particularly long cut or irregular cut even as the victim attempts to maneuver his legs to reduce the effect of the scourge. Note that there also a lot of "scourge marks" on the front of the victim so I guess the claim is that somebody was walking backwards in front of the victim scouging away. So not only was this scourger capable of making these neat little marks he also could do it while walking backwards.

 

[Evolved Wookie]

Hello, I'm Dorris Attenborough.

Tonight, using the latest in sophisticated computer imaging and the most recent theories of forum-historians and ecumenical-anthropology, we aim to take you on a journey into a world of the past, where forum discussions appear EXACTLY as we believe they might have done over one-hundred-million pages ago.

Of course, we can't be certain that this is how it would have actually happened, but we're confident that this represents the latest and most accurate theories available.

Enter a world where the last few millennia of learning and debate NEVER happened. Join us on an epic venture into the past. Come with us now as we go...

Walking With Shroud Debaters.

 

[Jabba]

This is from an earlier post of mine (2660) about the scourge marks:

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...roud-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...

Dave,

In THIS (my) post, I’ll just try to deal with your immediate paragraph above -- I’ll try to deal with your other paragraphs (not included above) in my next posts.

- Unfortunately, desiring to address one sub-etc-issue at a time, I never did get back to the "Shroud Scope 8" link to which you referred in the link above, nor to the Faccini/Fanti paper to which that link referred. Sorry about that.
- Anyway, in my posts (3900 & 3904), I was only unwittingly “rejecting” what the author was saying – I didn’t KNOW what he was saying… And now, I need to go back to what he was saying and see if I can find a credible answer.
- Perhaps unfortunately, I can’t resist asking you the same question re Adler and Antonacci – do you reject their claims about the serum clot retraction rings?

Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

...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...

Dave,
- I've gotta ask -- can you give me links debunking blood on the Shroud? I must admit that the only scientists debunking the blood of which I know are those from the 1973 Italian study, and Walter McCrone. And so far, I think that I have good retorts to their conclusions.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
- Perhaps unfortunately, I can’t resist asking you the same question re Adler and Antonacci – do you reject their claims about the serum clot retraction rings?

We reject any link with the radiocarbon dating, the subject you claimed to be addressing.
No-one has shown evidence of any human blood on the shroud, not that that would in any way support the supposed first century origin of the shorud.

 

[catsmate]

- I've gotta ask -- can you give me links debunking blood on the Shroud?

Why don't you support your claim with evidence that there's blood on the shroud? And not the Heller/Adler tests, they merely showed porphyrin was present and the presence of iron, or the unsupported STURP claims, based on drawing the wrong conclusions from the presence of proteins and albumin. Let's see you competent microanalytical tests that showed blood residue.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

I must admit that the only scientists debunking the blood of which I know are those from the 1973 Italian study, and Walter McCrone. And so far, I think that I have good retorts to their conclusions.
--- Jabba

We've dealt with you claims regarding McCrone previously, including your attempt at slander.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

I have tried that once with water and some industrial sized soft sopalin. The resulting humid area was much much wider than my actual face on the side where the jaw are.

I have some old shirt at home i wanted to throw out, I think I may try to do it again but not with paint, maybe with some juice like orange or strawberries, easier for me to procurate than paint which can go from the skin...

ETA: I remember also a web site showed a face or a mask imprinted onto a cloth using paints too and it was also wide on the side and top bottom, now if i could only remember the web site.

 

[Aepervius]

And i am not even sure why this is not self evident that there will be deformation. We don't even need a real face for the experiment just a vaguely tubular form : the cloth will fall to the side at least until a fall off (in case of a tube about 1/2). But a cloth is a plan, once you project the point of the tube onto the plan it is much wider and detail like the side which were a distance will be deformed geometrically and enlarged. For example ears which appear at a distance X a diameter of the tube and are at 1/2, will appear on the projected imprint at PI*X/2 since the whole perimeter is PI*X and half of it is PI*X/2. So roughly it will be expanded sideway for a tube to about 1.57 factor.

I contend it is a mathematical geometrical certainty that there will be deformation due to the nature of projecting something ovoid-tube like onto a flat plan!

 

[Aepervius]

I jsut ran into the toilet splashed my face full of water and deposited a hand cloth onto my face. It was not very marked but the *watered* area was definitively way waay larger than how my face appear like above by a factor 1.5 about.

That means detail of the side of the jaw should actually appear *enlarged* and on the picture rather than a flat paint like face.

utter fake shroud. Can only be a painting.

Oh and you all owe me a laugh, my GF asked my what i was doing on the floor with pocket cloth onto my face.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

...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?

Dave,
- According to the New Testament anyway (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15 and John 19:1), Jesus was scourged before carrying the cross up to "Golgotha," where he would be crucified.
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

And i am not even sure why this is not self evident that there will be deformation.

Honestly, I'm not either--but I figured proposing an experiment that could be done at home easily enough might sway Jabba into thining about this for a few minutes.

The deformation that really gets me is the top of the head. In the shroud it's nonexistent--you see the face side and the back side, and that's it. If the image were really produced by a body we'd at minimum see the top of the head--and in reality it'd be rather spectacularly deformed. That alone makes it obvious that the image isn't actually from a body of any kind being wrapped in a cloth--at best, it's two separate images.

 

[Garrette]

Why don't you support your claim with evidence that there's blood on the shroud? And not the Heller/Adler tests, they merely showed porphyrin was present and the presence of iron, or the unsupported STURP claims, based on drawing the wrong conclusions from the presence of proteins and albumin. Let's see you competent microanalytical tests that showed blood residue.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


We've dealt with you claims regarding McCrone previously, including your attempt at slander.

This.

You need to support your claims, Jabba, with real evidence.

Here's the situation:

Claim 1: The Shroud of Turn exists. (Accepted as proven)
Claim 2: There is an image on the SoT. (Accepted as proven)
Claim 3: The Shroud dates to the time of Christ. (NOT PROVEN)
Claim 4: The image is of the crucified Christ. (NOT PROVEN)

If we do nothing, absolutely nothing, then the situation is that claims 3 and 4 are unproven. But we haven't done nothing. Instead, there is positive proof in the form of C14 dating that the shroud dates to the 14th century.

To prove claim 3, then, you have to (1) Scientifically disprove the C14 dating; speculation about possible errors does not remotely approach such disproof. AND (2) Prove a date of the time of Christ.

You, Jabba, have done neither of these, and neither has any other shroud proponent. Only one scientific paper supporting your side, and it has been academically destroyed. Everything else you claim as evidence is something that is not published in a reputable journal, but even if we overlook that, the claims have already been demonstrated as specious.

It does not matter at all that you do not think those claims have been demonstrated as specious. It matters only where the evidence objectively leads. All that you and your fellow shroudies have demonstrated is that you are willing to twist evidence, ignore evidence, and make leaps of logic when needed.

For pity's sake, even when you begin to talk about something that isn't the C14 data you still ask us to do your work for you. Are you not even the slightest bit ashamed at your conduct here?

If I were grading an undergraduate level research project put together as you have done this, I would fail the student. If it were high school level I might consider awarding a C.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- According to the New Testament anyway (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15 and John 19:1), Jesus was scourged before carrying the cross up to "Golgotha," where he would be crucified.
--- Jabba

1. Precisely, which means he wasn't scourged when the shroud was on him, which means that the scourge marks that overlap image of flesh and cloth on the shroud are proof of forgery.

2. If you're going to quote the Bible, then please address what has been repeatedly pointed out to you:

John 20:6-7 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head.

Even the high schooler is approaching an F.

 

[Garrette]

Honestly, I'm not either--but I figured proposing an experiment that could be done at home easily enough might sway Jabba into thining about this for a few minutes.

The deformation that really gets me is the top of the head. In the shroud it's nonexistent--you see the face side and the back side, and that's it. If the image were really produced by a body we'd at minimum see the top of the head--and in reality it'd be rather spectacularly deformed. That alone makes it obvious that the image isn't actually from a body of any kind being wrapped in a cloth--at best, it's two separate images.

You are ignoring the levitating-corpse-black-hole hypothesis. Rather closed-minded of you.

 

[Dinwar]

You are ignoring the levitating-corpse-black-hole hypothesis. Rather closed-minded of you.

Never claimed to be open-minded--I've always claimed to be closed-minded, with a specific key to unlocking my mind (evidence).

Also, how would a black hole and levitating corpse prevent the top of the head from being imaged? I honestly can't even see it being possible. At best, the black hole would be at the head end--and would swallow the shroud whole. Any other configuration would result in the top of the head contacting the shroud, and leaving an image.

 

[Garrette]

Never claimed to be open-minded--I've always claimed to be closed-minded, with a specific key to unlocking my mind (evidence).

Also, how would a black hole and levitating corpse prevent the top of the head from being imaged? I honestly can't even see it being possible. At best, the black hole would be at the head end--and would swallow the shroud whole. Any other configuration would result in the top of the head contacting the shroud, and leaving an image.

The video said "quantum." Surely that in itself is sufficient evidence?