Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[TimCallahan]

In reality, everything said about carbon dating is going to be wasted on Jabba. If the Shroud were carbon dates all over again in a way that satisfied all his objections, and it still gave a medieval dating, he (or she) would simply come up with new objections.

Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus.

 

[David Mo]

(...)

Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus.

The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.

 

[pakeha]

The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.

THE William Meacham?

Oh, that's a lovely find, Dave Mo.

Meacham is familiar to us all as a victim of the Kouznetsov scam.

Kouznetsov et al, writing in the Journal of Archaeological Science (23:109-122) argue, very convincingly I felt, about the possibilities for carbon exchange during the 1532 fire and especially about how the C13/C12 ratio would NOT reflect this event.

http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

Ian Wilson wrote his expose of Kouznetsov here:

In the last Newsletter (no.43) I expressed some warnings regarding Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov, the Moscow scientist who claimed to have scientifically demonstrated how the Shroud was 'enriched' with carbon 14 during the fire of 1532, thereby making misleadingly 'young' the date attributed to it by radiocarbon dating. In a letter also published in Newsletter 43 Dr. John Jackson, Director of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado, queried the manner in which Dr.Kouznetsov had represented certain of his (Dr. Jackson's) calculations as if these were his own.

http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm
and here:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4301.htm


ETA:
As of 2011, Kouznetsov still has an Internet presence as a legitimate Sindonologist!
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=34481621&targetid=profile

Truly amazing.

 

[tsig]

- Note that by giving in and responding to Dinwar's post, I stirred up a hornet's nest -- giving me numerous more 'stings' to deal with, when I was already overwhelmed by numerous new stings from Dave's #3913.
- So, once again, I'll try to resist the temptation to defend my whole perimeter -- and focus, instead, upon one 'small' front at a time. Back to 3913...
--- Jabba

Don't you think it would be better if you focused on the facts instead of defending your perimeter?

 

[tsig]

Once you've drawn an ace from a normal pack of cards the probability of drawing a second ace is 3/51, not 1/13. The 3rd ace is 2/50 (1/25) and 4th ace is 1/49.

Colour me unimpressed with your statistical abilities.

He starts with a deck of cards and arrives at Jesus.

"Worldview" is usually a sign of woo.

 

[David Mo]

THE William Meacham?

Oh, that's a lovely find, Dave Mo.

Meacham is familiar to us all as a victim of the Kouznetsov scam.

http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

Ian Wilson wrote his expose of Kouznetsov here:

http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm
and here:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4301.htm


ETA:
As of 2011, Kouznetsov still has an Internet presence as a legitimate Sindonologist!
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=34481621&targetid=profile

Truly amazing.

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone/scienza/00024028_La_datazione_del_tessuto.html .

 

[catsmate]

Can you give a link to the photos which have convinced you that scourge marks and clot retraction rings are present on the shroud?

I’d like to see how clear these marks are.

He's already been asked to support his contention about the alleged clot rings but hasn't done so.

 

[catsmate]

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone/scienza/00024028_La_datazione_del_tessuto.html .

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

 

[sleepy_lioness]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

Not really, no. Since I also constitute a side in this debate (well, I do now), can I claim that the Shroud of Turin was made by my Gran on her old Singer sewing maching last week, and have that ruled relevant by definition?

 

[zooterkin]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?

Claim what you like, it has no bearing on the validity of carbon dating.

You have yet to demonstrate that there are any "serum clot retraction rings", nor, if there were, that they could only have been made in the first century.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

No.

No competent scientist with access to the cloth has ever documented blood, much less "serum contraction rings", on the cloth which was not "wrapped" around the anatomically incorrect, stylized representation of a human in typical Byzantine style. A cloth which, BTW, has been competently and accurately dated by three independent laboratories as a medieval artifact.

Any claims made about the medieval artifact are relevant only to the extent that evidence can be produced to support them.

 

[Garrette]

Not really, no. Since I also constitute a side in this debate (well, I do now), can I claim that the Shroud of Turin was made by my Gran on her old Singer sewing maching last week, and have that ruled relevant by definition?

This.

We claim it, therefore it matters is the cry of the intellectually bankrupt. It reminds me of so much woo out there -- the reiki practicioners who say that someone "got better" when someone else waved her hands around or the psychics who dredge incompetent studies for the tiniest straw in order to shout that what they claim is proven.

Let me put it another way, and I'm serious about this, Jabba: Let's suppose that it is irrefutably proven that no 14th century artist could have produced the image on the shroud. How do you know it wasn't aliens who used superior technology to create the image in that same century? After all, that would be more consistent with the evidence than your claim; at least it fits the C14 dating.

 

[pakeha]

Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.

But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=7 and
http://www.sciencedomain.org/editorial-board-members.php?id=12.

Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”.

It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone/scienza/00024028_La_datazione_del_tessuto.html .

Thanks for the Meacham link- and for the other goodies, too.

If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals.
More on DK's "career".

Catsmate1, as always, you come up trumps.

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

I'll see it more clearly when I see your sources for these claims, so I'm looking forward to having you post them up.

 

[catsmate]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

Rubbish. Yet again you are trying to divert attention. You supposed "serum lot rings" have nothing to do with the validity of the radiocarbon dating.
Why are you so scared to actually address the radiocarbon dating?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

I believe that in .../ACT2Scene1.php Jabba miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the All-Ace deck.

This is an example of conditional probability: the probability that an event would have, given that another event has occurred. In this case, the probability we want is the probability that, given that an Ace has been drawn, the Ace was drawn from the all-Ace deck.

Let's represent this probability by the expression P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn).

Bayes’ theorem (see …/wiki/Bayes’_theorem) states that for conditional probabilities A and B,

P(A|B) = ( P(B|A) * P(A) ) / ( P(B) )

In this case, for A = All-Ace deck and B = Ace drawn,

P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) =
( P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) ) /
( P(Ace drawn) )

For Jabba’s example,

P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) = 1.0 since the All-Ace deck contains Aces only;

P(All-Ace deck) = 1 / 50 = 0.02;

P(Ace drawn) = P(Ace drawn | All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) +
P(Ace drawn | not All-Ace deck) * P(not All-Ace deck)
= 1.0 * (1/50) + (1/13) * (49/50)
= 0.02 + 0.075385

So, P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) = (1.0 * .02) / (0.02 + 0.075385)
= .02 / 0.09538
= 0.2097,

which is slightly better than 1 chance in 5.

While this is not that far from Jabba’s result ( 0.07538 / .02 ) which he called 1 in 4, it indicates to me that Jabba misapplied conditional probability, and probably Bayes’s Theorem, by leaving out one term and getting the expression upside down.

This does not support Jabba's claim to be a certified Statistician (whatever that means). It looks to me like Jabba is cutting and pasting a few statistical arguments he understands poorly if at all.

Humots,

- This is going to take me awhile, but so far, I can't figure out why we can't just compare the 2 "combined" probabilities -- i.e. combined probability #1) the probability of randomly selecting the ace deck from the total number of decks (.02), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the ace deck has been chosen (1.00), and #2) the probability of randomly selecting a normal deck from the total number of decks (.98), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the normal deck has been chosen (.076923077).
- Consequently, before we get started, the probability of chosing the ace deck and then drawing an ace is .02*1.00, or .02, while the probability of chosing a normal deck and then drawing an ace is .98*.076923077, or .075384615. And, the probability of drawing an ace via the second route is almost 4 times as large as the probability of doing it via the first.

--- Jabba
- The smilie at the top is an accident, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

- I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree for now about the relevance here of serum clot retraction rings.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Why, Jabba?
Why not at least post up your linked sources so we can read them over?

 

[IanS]

- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?
--- Jabba

You don't even know if any of these marks even exist on the shroud ("clot rings" and "scourge"), do you?

You are simply accepting the unpublished claims of the same group of shroud believers all over again.

Can you give a reference to any independent scientist who has ever confirmed any such marks in any well known science journal?

Or are all your stories of clots and marks just yet more religious faith nonsense from shroud fanatics?

Where are your marks? Lets see them.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Why, Jabba?
Why not at least post up your linked sources so we can read them over?

Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud.
- The argument I'm putting aside for now is that SCRR's are relevant.
--- Jabba