Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Giordano]

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

First-sorry I can access the Heller and Adler paper through my university and didn't realize there is a pay wall. But, my God, this paper represents the key argument in favor of your blood theory- isn't it worth $15 to you to read and understand? If you do read it, you will be shocked how little proof there is in it.

Second, the citation for Berry is the Heller and Adler paper itself! It is perfectly legitimate to go over a paper and point out its flaws referring to fundamental defects in logic, absence of proof, and errors in basic biochemistry. Basic scientific principles that are widely accepted are not cited in most scientific papers.

 

[Dinwar]

- 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.

Jabba, if you're going to pretend to be serious about this research you are going to have to pay this $15. Frankly, I'm astounded that after 20 years of research you've failed to find something this basic. It says horrible things about your research methodology.

- Your second suggestion is just an “argument” -- with no citations

Considering your lack of citations throughout this thread, and your refusal to actually READ our citations when we provide them (see above for one example; any page in this thread provides others), you no longer have the right to expect us to take demands from you that we cite our sources seriously. I'm sorry, but this is a flagrant double-standard and is simply insulting.

Secondly, this is how science WORKS. Someone published a paper. Someone else went through it and evaluated the claims made. The fact that it's on a blog and not a journal really is irrelevant for the evaluation phase--as long as the arguments are properly sourced, it's valid. The evaluation is processing the ideas and arguments, and critiquing the methodology--stuff that you can do from basic principles and a halfway decent background in the subject. Furthermore, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN THIS THREAD. If you dismiss the Berry arguments, we can dismiss YOUR arguments for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

So which is it? Do we dismiss Berry's arguments and toss your own out as well? Or are you actually going to read something refuting your claims? You really don't have any other options--even finding a different reason to dismiss Berry's claims would require you reading them.

- As they stand, I don’t think these “sources” help your cause very much.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

You couldn't be bothered to read either of them, apparently. Your refutation of one is "I don't want to spend money" and your refutation of the other is nothing more than Poisoning the Well. You simply don't know enough about either to evaluate how they support any case.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I will follow up Dinwar's post by explaining that Berry's blog DETAILED why he had problems with the Heller and Adler manuscript, using widely accepted facts, logic, and scientifically based criteria. Berry did NOT just dismiss Heller and Adler's paper by saying. "I disagree" as you so often have.

That is what we want to see in your posts: specific explanations for why you accept one point of view, and dismiss another. You can use logic and commonly accepted facts ("the Shroud shows an image that looks like a person") without citation. But citations are important when one brings up a not-widely accepted fact because they allow people to judge the strength of the foundations on which the argument is based.

You realized that the "serum clot retraction" evidence was much weaker than generally claimed by the pro-Shroud community when you finally saw the original paper, right? Similarly, when you eventually look up the Heller and Adler manuscript, you will realize how weak the blood evidence really is.

And yes, when you start using citations yourself, I will have more respect for you pointing out their lack in other people's work.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

In post 4261, you state, "- 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."

What are you recollecting if you never read the paper?
How are you going to support your recollection if you never intend to read the paper?

 

[pakeha]

Jabba,

In post 4261, you state, "- 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."

What are you recollecting if you never read the paper?
How are you going to support your recollection if you never intend to read the paper?

Ouch.

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba,

In post 4261, you state, "- 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."

What are you recollecting if you never read the paper?
How are you going to support your recollection if you never intend to read the paper?

I have long come to the conclusion (and probably otehr have) that the 20 ears of research of Jabba are in reality 20 years of reading secondary, or maybe tertiary source, not the primary, and accepting at face value those indirect source says without even checking, because those indirect secondary source simply agree with hsi belief.

I have seen that with creationist and truly a lot from homeopath for example, they cite you a paragraph or a conclusion of a sturdy, and when somebody check they find out that the conclusion is not supported, or the paper utterly misinterpreted, or the quality of the paper is bad.

I think this is the same here, and very visible with the Heller and Adler paper. Jabba never read it, accepted interpretation at face value from other people, and he has no clue on the quality of the paper itself.

I am willing to be OTOH that it won't influence his belief a bit and he still pretend that his disagreement with everybody here is as valid as our position, and he will present in 5 syllogistic step and 20 proof that the 14C carbon dating is wrong, serum ring blah blah porphyrin blah pigments blah whiping etc...

 

[David Mo]

Let us begin from the beginning

Jabba:

1. The nature of the “blood” stains in the shroud is a secondary problem. This is my first point. It is an interesting problem, but a secondary one. Because, either true blood or painting, a natural transfer from a human body is impossible.

2. I begin with a quote from a forensic expert.

“The subject was presented by “a leading forensic pathologist (Michael Baden, deputy chief medical examiner of New York for Suffolk County) [who] says (…) «Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body»." (Cfr: Marvin M. Mueller, reply to William Meacham “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”, http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm ).

3. Further (perhaps involuntary) support to criticism comes from a well known sindonist:

“No scientists, physicians, artists or others have ever been able to convey such anatomically precise and complete blood marks onto cloth by direct contact or by any means (…) It is an 18 year old quote by those who seemed unaware of Vignon and Barbets’ unsuccessful attempts to transfer blood marks to linen by direct contact, and was made before Lavoie’s and Notowski’s unsuccessful attempts to transfer and embed blood into linen cloths with the unique realism that is found on the Shroud.” Mark Antonacci’s Reply To Ray Rogers’ Review of His Book, 2002 http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/antonaci.pdf

4. And the definitive statement comes from G. Lavoie, who is supposed to have done a satisfactory explanation of blood stains.

“In Blood mark study 1, we found that image formation did not allow lateral body-to-cloth image transfer even though the body was in intimate contact with the cloth. Image formation was probably not natural and was likely intentional”. G. Lavoie: “Turin Shroud: a medical forensic study of its blood marks and image”, Frascati, 2010, p. 7. http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf

5. You can bet on the formation of blood stains: painting or miracle. Antonacci and Lavoie bet on miracle or “mysterious” events. But they don’t consider the blood stains on the homo turinensis’ back of the neck. Here the “rivulets” are running on the hair in all directions. This is an unnatural position. Not only the transfer to cloth is naturally impossible, the blood stains on the back of the neck are unnatural themselves.

The logic conclusion is they are painted. Well, you may prefer miraculous explanations. A miraculous explanation can explain everything. I.e. it explains nothing.

 

[pakeha]

^
Bookmarked.
Homo turinensis, indeed.

 

[catsmate]

Jabba,

In post 4261, you state, "- 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."

What are you recollecting if you never read the paper?
How are you going to support your recollection if you never intend to read the paper?

Like most people pushing woo-heavy agendas his "research" has probably been limited to supportive websites and (possibly) books which filter the material for their intended audience. A form of reinforcement.

I have long come to the conclusion (and probably otehr have) that the 20 ears of research of Jabba are in reality 20 years of reading secondary, or maybe tertiary source, not the primary, and accepting at face value those indirect source says without even checking, because those indirect secondary source simply agree with hsi belief.

Exactly. It's classic wooster behaviour.

I have seen that with creationist and truly a lot from homeopath for example, they cite you a paragraph or a conclusion of a sturdy, and when somebody check they find out that the conclusion is not supported, or the paper utterly misinterpreted, or the quality of the paper is bad.

Also physics cranks, EU/PC proponents, 911 nuts and woosters in general.

I think this is the same here, and very visible with the Heller and Adler paper. Jabba never read it, accepted interpretation at face value from other people, and he has no clue on the quality of the paper itself.

I think it's part of the believer mindset, they're happier accepting definitive statements from (supposedly) authoritative sources rather than doing their own research. They're used to being dictated to about what to believe.

I am willing to be OTOH that it won't influence his belief a bit and he still pretend that his disagreement with everybody here is as valid as our position, and he will present in 5 syllogistic step and 20 proof that the 14C carbon dating is wrong, serum ring blah blah porphyrin blah pigments blah whiping etc...

Given his habit of repetitively posting the same debunked arguments again and again I think this is certain.

 

[Jabba]

First-sorry I can access the Heller and Adler paper through my university and didn't realize there is a pay wall. But, my God, this paper represents the key argument in favor of your blood theory- isn't it worth $15 to you to read and understand? If you do read it, you will be shocked how little proof there is in it....

Giordano,

- First -- it would cost me $25; I just spent $25 on the Miller/Pellicori article; and, I really don't want to get into that mode.
- Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free…
- Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see.

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see.

You did okay on the last paper you actually took a look at. Perhaps your critical skills aren't as bad as you think they are.

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,

- First -- it would cost me $25; I just spent $25 on the Miller/Pellicori article; and, I really don't want to get into that mode.
- Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free…
- Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see.

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Do you have a library near your? Especially a college or university library? If so, they may have a hard copy or on-line subscription that will give you free access.

Don't sell yourself short: you can certainly judge what they actually show as data (if i remember coreectly, only one figure, and it shows a poor match to real blood) versus what they claim without showing data (multiple claims) versus what they don't claim at all, but which pro-Shroud sites often think is in the paper.

 

[carlitos]

On the bright side, opening another discussion on Bayesian probability hasn't compromised Jabba's productivity in this thread.

 

[The Norseman]

On the bright side, opening another discussion on Bayesian probability hasn't compromised Jabba's productivity in this thread.

Well, he did say he's giving himself an hour a day in his Bayesian probability thread, so that still leaves three hours a day for this one so we can all breathe a sigh of relief that he's saving the majority of his time for this monumental and critical endeavor.

 

[Susheel]

Am I getting this right? Jabba has shifted his stance from "It is definitely the burial shroud of Jesus" to "There is a teensy weensy probability it could be the burial shroud of jesus and this will be plain to you if you accept the teensy weensy probability that those are real blood stains on the cloth."

 

[pakeha]

First-sorry I can access the Heller and Adler paper through my university and didn't realize there is a pay wall. But, my God, this paper represents the key argument in favor of your blood theory- isn't it worth $15 to you to read and understand? If you do read it, you will be shocked how little proof there is in it. ...

Since you've read the paper, could you give us your own take on it, please?

...- Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free…...

If H & A' s paper isn't the cornerstone for a belief there's blood on the TS, then what IS your reason to think this claim is other than fantasy?

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Heller&Adler

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see.

You did okay on the last paper you actually took a look at. Perhaps your critical skills aren't as bad as you think they are.

Squeegee,
- OK.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Giordano,

- First -- it would cost me $25; I just spent $25 on the Miller/Pellicori article; and, I really don't want to get into that mode.
- Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free…
- Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see.

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Do you have a library near your? Especially a college or university library? If so, they may have a hard copy or on-line subscription that will give you free access.

Don't sell yourself short: you can certainly judge what they actually show as data (if i remember coreectly, only one figure, and it shows a poor match to real blood) versus what they claim without showing data (multiple claims) versus what they don't claim at all, but which pro-Shroud sites often think is in the paper.

Giordano,
- OK.
--- Jabba

 

[zooterkin]

Jabba, please learn how to use the multi-quote feature.

 

[Jabba]

Zoo,
- OK.
--- Jabba