Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Humots]

space fill space fill space fill

 

[carlitos]

space fill space fill space fill

Hu,
=That was unintentionally a pretty good parody of this thread.
++Carlito

 

[abaddon]

Hu,
=That was unintentionally a pretty good parody of this thread.
++Carlito

Yup. And plainly applies to another immortal thread.

 

[Dinwar]

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

So you're unwilling to do any actual research, hung your theory on a paper you hadn't read, and are going to blindly follow those who's conclusions agree with your own a priori assertions. That's not research.

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

He lists his location as Schenectady, New York, which is home to Union College^WP.

 

[catsmate]

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.
Squeegee,
- OK.
--- Jabba

Perhaps you should read the critiques of their work that you've been given links to? Or do some research? Their "science" is rubbish.

So you're unwilling to do any actual research, hung your theory on a paper you hadn't read, and are going to blindly follow those who's conclusions agree with your own a priori assertions. That's not research.

Fairly classic believer behaviour.

 

[Giordano]

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

I will try to do so, but it will take a few days: I'm working on another project that has a deadline.

 

[pakeha]

^
No worries; real life makes sporadic demands on our time and attention.

All the best with your project.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Heller&Adler

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,

- I'm just getting over a stomach virus, so haven't gotten to a library, and I'm still having trouble negotiating my electronic connection to the State Library -- so I haven't been able to read all 2 pages of that Heller/Adler article in Applied Optics. I'm hoping, however, that the following is a better article anyway: Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Whatever, I'll also be looking for that one, and wondered that you might be able to beat me to it...
- My own "sources" for thinking that H&A had done more research than indicated by Catsmate were a bunch of secondaries, number one of which was http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf. On pages 2 & 3, Ford says

Regarding the ‘blood,’ Heller and Adler
(hereafter H&A) concluded that it was actual blood
material on the basis of physics-based and chemistry-
based testing, most tests of which will be discussed,
specifically the following: detection of higher-than-
elsewhere levels of iron in ‘blood’ areas via X-ray
fluorescence, indicative spectra obtained by
microspectrophotometry, generation with chemicals
and ultraviolet light of characteristic porphyrin
fluorescence, positive tests for hemochromagen using
hydrazine, positive tests for cyanmethemoglobin using
a neutralized cyanide solution, positive tests for the
bile pigment bilirubin, positive tests for protein, and
use of proteolytic enzymes on ‘blood’ material, leaving no residue.
The tests and data not discussed
are the reflection spectra indicative of bilirubin’s32 and
blood’s presence,33 chemical detection of the specific
protein albumin,34 the presence of serum halos around
various ‘blood’ marks when viewed under ultraviolet
light,35 the immunological determination that the
‘blood’ is of primate origin,36 and the forensic
judgement that the various blood and wound marks
appear extremely realistic.37

- Per usual, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,

- I'm just getting over a stomach virus, so haven't gotten to a library, and I'm still having trouble negotiating my electronic connection to the State Library -- so I haven't been able to read all 2 pages of that Heller/Adler article in Applied Optics. I'm hoping, however, that the following is a better article anyway: Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Whatever, I'll also be looking for that one, and wondered that you might be able to beat me to it...
- My own "sources" for thinking that H&A had done more research than indicated by Catsmate were a bunch of secondaries, number one of which was http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf. On pages 2 & 3, Ford says

Regarding the ‘blood,’ Heller and Adler
(hereafter H&A) concluded that it was actual blood
material on the basis of physics-based and chemistry-
based testing, most tests of which will be discussed,
specifically the following: detection of higher-than-
elsewhere levels of iron in ‘blood’ areas via X-ray
fluorescence, indicative spectra obtained by
microspectrophotometry, generation with chemicals
and ultraviolet light of characteristic porphyrin
fluorescence, positive tests for hemochromagen using
hydrazine, positive tests for cyanmethemoglobin using
a neutralized cyanide solution, positive tests for the
bile pigment bilirubin, positive tests for protein, and
use of proteolytic enzymes on ‘blood’ material, leaving no residue.
The tests and data not discussed
are the reflection spectra indicative of bilirubin’s32 and
blood’s presence,33 chemical detection of the specific
protein albumin,34 the presence of serum halos around
various ‘blood’ marks when viewed under ultraviolet
light,35 the immunological determination that the
‘blood’ is of primate origin,36 and the forensic
judgement that the various blood and wound marks
appear extremely realistic.37

- Per usual, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

I think many of those "proofs" have already been rebutted bere, and as you know, secondary sources such as you quote, especially from people with agendas and little scientific knowledge, are often gross distortions or dead wrong. I will try to track down the original and read it, but you should promise to do so too. I don't want to do all your work for you.

 

[Dinwar]

I think many of those "proofs" have already been rebutted bere, and as you know, secondary sources such as you quote, especially from people with agendas and little scientific knowledge, are often gross distortions or dead wrong. I will try to track down the original and read it, but you should promise to do so too. I don't want to do all your work for you.

I propose that we call this the Jabba Principle: if your opposition has to do more research to support your arguments than you yourself have done, you're a crackpot.

 

[catsmate]

Giordano,
<snip>

As I've already pointed out, with references and links, the "evidence" of Heller and Adler has been shown to be rubbish and provides no support for the hypothesis that blood was/in present on the shroud.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Heller&Adler

I think many of those "proofs" have already been rebutted bere, and as you know, secondary sources such as you quote, especially from people with agendas and little scientific knowledge, are often gross distortions or dead wrong. I will try to track down the original and read it, but you should promise to do so too. I don't want to do all your work for you.

Giordano,

- I tell you what. Don't worry about the Heller/Adler papers -- I'll do that. How about just identifying a "rebuttal" or two. Numerous "claims" have been made by your side about my claims -- but IMO, only a very few have been effectively argued (and, I have admitted those), and I don't think that any of those have to do with H&A's work.

- I'll try to get over to Union College today re the H&A papers.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

but IMO, only a very few have been effectively argued

Your opinion is based on your own twisted notion that this is a court-room debate and not a scientific one, and your abject refusal to even consider the notion that you're wrong. So whenever someone sees "IMO" in your posts, I strongly advise them to reject any follow-up as a rule of thumb.

Also, your entire blood argument rests on the notion that in a society where self-flagelation was so common that they had to produce rules governing it so they didn't kill off too many monks that way no one could ever possibly put blood on this particular cloth. The notion is nonsensical. You've yet to even attempt to address that, except to dismiss it without actually discussing it.

and I don't think that any of those have to do with H&A's work.

Jabba, I don't NEED to see H&A's work. Even if we assume that the stuff on the shroud IS blood, it in no way invalidates the C14 dating. Blood's been around for a long time, and it certainly was around in the Middle Ages. I'm not disputing your evidence--your line of reasoning is invalid, so I don't need to bother.

Besides, it was demonstrated earlier that you hadn't read this work either. So criticizing others for not reading it is rather crass.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Giordano,

- I tell you what. Don't worry about the Heller/Adler papers -- I'll do that. How about just identifying a "rebuttal" or two. Numerous "claims" have been made by your side about my claims -- but IMO, only a very few have been effectively argued (and, I have admitted those), and I don't think that any of those have to do with H&A's work.

- I'll try to get over to Union College today re the H&A papers.

--- Jabba

Rich:

You admit that you have not read H & A's work.

In what way, precisely, is Berry's Blog not a rebuttal (rather, I would say, a refutation), of the H & A claims that you have not read?

In what way is David Mo's post #487 not a rebuttal?

What do you think a "rebuttal" is?

And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?

 

[carlitos]

I'm not disputing your evidence--your line of reasoning is invalid, so I don't need to bother.

Jabba, read the above post. Then read it again. Then read it again.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Blood/Heller&Adler

Rich:

You admit that you have not read H & A's work.

In what way, precisely, is Berry's Blog not a rebuttal (rather, I would say, a refutation), of the H & A claims that you have not read?

In what way is David Mo's post #487 not a rebuttal?

What do you think a "rebuttal" is?

And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?

Slowvehicle,

- You're right -- I was confusing "rebut" with "refute."

- I will try to show that the image had to involve a recently tortured and crucified human in order to show the blood detail that is found on the Shroud; and then, I will try to show why a medieval artist could not have done it that way.
- If I can do that, I'll claim that we're pretty much stuck with 1) the Shroud is something truly exceptional, 2) it is most likely the real thing, and 3) the carbon dating must be wrong.

--- Rich

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,

- You're right -- I was confusing "rebut" with "refute."

-- snip same promise to show what will never be shown and which is irrational anyway--

You present second hand accounts by people who have been shown to misrepresent the facts, of material by people who have been shown to misrepresent the facts, and then complain that we have not presented peer-reviewed dissections of it. Then you insist that the actual scientific evidence must be wrong. Does this not strike you as at least a little misguided?

 

[Dinwar]

and then, I will try to show why a medieval artist could not have done it that way.

Please show this evidence. You've been babbling about it for a month, and have ignored every single time anyone has pointed out the rampant torture that was ongoing in the Middle Ages. Provide the evidence, or admit you can't.

Please explain why a culture which included self-flagulation couldn't find a body that had been beaten. I really, really want to hear your argument for this.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- You're right -- I was confusing "rebut" with "refute."

- I will try to show that the image had to involve a recently tortured and crucified human in order to show the blood

...might want to start with showing that it is, infact, "blood"...

detail that is found on the Shroud;

...details that demonstrate that whatever the supposed "blood" is, it is not applied to the cloth in any way that resembles how blood from an hours-dead, washed body would behave...

and then, I will try to show why a medieval artist could not have done it that way.

...actually, the artificial characteristics of the location of the "blood", the "flow patterns" of the "blood", the nature of the "wounds" from which the "blood" is supposed to have issued, all argue that it is, in fact, artfice; it is, in fact, the work of an artist on the medieval artifact.

Not to mention that the body is not anatomically accurate, but a representation in the Byzantine style.

Not to mention that none of this has to do with the ¹⁴C dating.

- If I can do that, I'll claim that we're pretty much stuck with 1) the Shroud is something truly exceptional, 2) it is most likely the real thing, and 3) the carbon dating must be wrong.

--- Rich

No, Rich--just no. If you do not overcome your "point 3" first, none of the rest of your argument holds any water.