Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Blood on Shroud

It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not. Their tests showed the presence of a porphyrin (many of which exist, including in plants, the likely source of the pigments used to create the shroud), iron and protein (both of which, even together, certainly don't indicate blood)...

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

Feel free to do so. Remember details of the tests, who ran them and the results they showed. Not just your usual selection of unsubstantiated claims.

And may I suggest you keep notes on what's been discussed? It would save time and eliminate the continual repetition and rehashing of points.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

20 (twenty) years

 

[pakeha]

Heller and Adler?
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742

Here's an interesting take on their paper:
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...turin-even-if-some-real-blood-is-now-present/

 

[Dinwar]

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

It's largely irrelevant one way or the other. If you examined most of my clothing, you'd find blood on it. I tend to bleed a lot (working with sharp metal will do that). That doesn't mean that my blue jeans or t-shirts are the burial shroud of Christ. Furthermore, the thing was IN A FIRE. That's not exactly a safe place to be. People tend to bleed when rescuing things from fires. I've seen it first-hand. So even if there was blood, and even if it wasn't put there by an artist (something you've in no way even attempted to demonstrate), it STILL says NOTHING other than "There's blood here." There are far, far too many alternate explanations.

You are again excluding all the explanations you dislike, and only admitting the ones you do as possible. This is a critical failure in someone who claims to be a statistician. It is incompetence--and an incompetent statistician can't be trusted, so we can disregard your assessment of odds wholesale (and since all we have to go on are your assessments, that means your arguments just evaporated).

 

[David Mo]

Sindonist Archaeology is not Archaeology at all.

The principal point is: The discipline who studies old blood is Archaeometry or Scientific Archaeology. How many scientific archaeological studies (by experts in the matter) of the Turin Shroud have been done? Answer: no one. Point two: Are classic tests for blood detection (McCrone) useful in archaeometry? Answer: No. There is an archeological study (independent) that had used the Adler&Heller’s methods for detecting ancient blood? Answer: No. A study made by non-experts and not replicated by true experts can be conclusive? Answer. No.

Draw your own conclusions, please.

 

[catsmate]

Heller and Adler?
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742

Here's an interesting take on their paper:
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...turin-even-if-some-real-blood-is-now-present/

I like his medicinal leeches theory.

 

[Giordano]

I was surprised how little the H and A paper actually presented: a lot of negative results, a graph sowing the "blood" on the shroud did not match very well with real blood, and many assertions without data. No proof of blood by any means!

 

[tsig]

I was surprised how little the H and A paper actually presented: a lot of negative results, a graph sowing the "blood" on the shroud did not match very well with real blood, and many assertions without data. No proof of blood by any means!

Shroud Research:

1. Accept presence of blood as necessary to faith.

2. Look for any thing that helps with 1.

 

[pakeha]

I like his medicinal leeches theory.

Yeah.
It'd never have occurred to me, yet back in the day, as good a source of blood as any.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Heller&Adler

It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

 

[The Norseman]

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The sources for Adler and Heller's claim is twofold: Adler. Heller.

In other words, as has been pointed out to you about six different times (in differing fonts no less) the conclusions they draw are wildly incorrect considering their own evidence they found.

This obfuscation was humorous at first, but now it's just getting tiresome.

 

[Giordano]

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

 

[Aepervius]

@ the norseman, it has become beyond tiresome, he was told so many time in proper way by peoples. I'll avoid to comment on the issue , got my first warning for a long time, and I am not too keen on being banned.

 

[pakeha]

I used the search engine for the thread, Jabba, and found these posts bycatsmate1:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8302711&postcount=1401
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8314796&postcount=1623
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8512307&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8512307

And this one of yours:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8545756&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8545756

And from Dave Mo:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8551290&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8551290
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8551822&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8551822
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8601905&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8601905


IanS:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=8601826&highlight=Heller+Adler#post8601826

And myself:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8745113&postcount=3903

Enjoy reading what's already been posted up on the subject.


ETA:
This list of deathless information was posted in reply to this:

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

 

[The Norseman]

@ the norseman, it has become beyond tiresome, he was told so many time in proper way by peoples. I'll avoid to comment on the issue , got my first warning for a long time, and I am not too keen on being banned.

Yes, you're right; and with pakeha's comprehensive post above, it is more than painfully obvious at the dishonesty and manipulation going on here.

 

[pakeha]

Actually, I see the thread differently, perhaps because I know just how convincing the 'proofs' and 'evidence' of the pro-authenticity proponents are to those who haven't learned that supernatural 'relics' are simply flim-flam.

I think these discussions serve to create a pool of references on the subject of the TS thanks to the contributions of so many knowledgeable and articulate people.

Anyway, over time I'm going to fine down and hone proper reference entries to quantify the falsification of the following claims:

That blood was found on the TS.
That an 'invisible weave' caused confusion in the C14 dating.
That changes in the protocols diminish the reliability conclusions of the C14 dating.


It won't be anything original on my part- just a recopilation and ordering of information and sources from the discussions here at the JREF.
Call it my 2013 project.

Once I have rough working drafts going, I'll post them up for your target practise.

Now, back to your regular programming.
I'm looking forward to reading Jabba's evidence about the presence of blood on the TS.

ETA:
Thinking it over, is the subject even worth so much effort?
The TS is dated to the 14th century.
It's a medieval relic , acknowledged as such by the Vatican.

Jabba amuses themself by posting here and we amuse ourselves by replying.
At the end of the day, belief in fake relics will die away, just as belief in the magical properties of eclipses and thunder did.

Still, it IS amusing to see the pseudo-science of the TS treated here.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Heller&Adler

Originally Posted by catsmate1
It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Originally Posted by Jabba
Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

Giordano,

- Your first suggestion in 4267 is an article by Heller and Adler themselves, and you can't read the article w/o paying at least $15.
- Your second suggestion is just an “argument” -- with no citations -- written and posted by Colin Berry on his own blog. This would probably be a good starting point if Berry had provided citations.

- As they stand, I don’t think these “sources” help your cause very much.
- Can you point me to some of the others?
- Thanks.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by catsmate1
It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Originally Posted by Jabba
Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Giordano,

- Your first suggestion in 4267 is an article by Heller and Adler themselves, and you can't read the article w/o paying at least $15.
- Your second suggestion is just an “argument” -- with no citations -- written and posted by Colin Berry on his own blog. This would probably be a good starting point if Berry had provided citations.

- As they stand, I don’t think these “sources” help your cause very much.
- Can you point me to some of the others?
- Thanks.

--- Jabba

So you are admitting that you haven't even read the Heller and Adler article, and yet you are using it as proof of blood on the Shroud.

And by omission you admit you haven't read the many posts linked to by Pakeha showing that the article you haven't read is flawed.

Methinks the judge would find you in contempt.

 

[catsmate]

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

I've already dealt with this, as have others, at length. Stop wasting time demanding we was time repeatedly debunk your rubbish.
Your claim of blood, your job to support with. With facts and evidence.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The sources for Adler and Heller's claim is twofold: Adler. Heller.

In other words, as has been pointed out to you about six different times (in differing fonts no less) the conclusions they draw are wildly incorrect considering their own evidence they found.

This obfuscation was humorous at first, but now it's just getting tiresome.

Yeah, well what can you expect from someone who's admitted that his belief in the shroud's authenticity trumps actual facts.

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

I repeat, what can you expect from someone who's admitted that his belief desperate need to believe to believe, to shore up his faith, in the shroud's authenticity trumps actual facts.

So you are admitting that you haven't even read the Heller and Adler article, and yet you are using it as proof of blood on the Shroud.

Are we really surprised? Jabba's been shown to not bother to read the crap he claims supports his beliefs before.

And by omission you admit you haven't read the many posts linked to by Pakeha showing that the article you haven't read is flawed.

Methinks the judge would find you in contempt.

Well he already has my contempt.