Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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.

First you should show that there is blood on the Shroud. If that's not true, then these other arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Garrette]

This is truly fascinating.

On the one hand, Jabba has complete speculation--the foundations of which he has not even looked at--, and on the other hand he has scientific evidence that has withstood scrutiny.

The conclusion, of course, is this: Since my speculation can conceivably be correct if I ignore every objection, the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.

I get that, actually. It's faith. What I don't get is the obverse which is stated or implied all the time: You who accept the evidence over the speculation are closed-minded cynics.

 

[Giordano]

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

Jabba,

Although the H and A work has already been convincingly refuted and rebutted here, I will still try to read the original Canadian Forensics Science paper out of curiousity and to judge it for myself.

But, before I bother to tell you what I think of it: is there anything I might say, any evidence that I might present, that you would accept as invalidating their conclusions? From what I can see in this thread, nothing would change your mind. You would only state "well that's your opinion." Am I right or wrong?

 

[Giordano]

- 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

Haven't you been trying to do that for the past many, many months, and failed?
What do you plan to do differently in the future? Recycle the same discredted arguments?

Presenting real evidence would be a real change for the better.

And stop telling us what you intend to do-just do it!

 

[abaddon]

Haven't you been trying to do that for the past many, many months, and failed?
What do you plan to do differently in the future? Recycle the same discredted arguments?

Presenting real evidence would be a real change for the better.

And stop telling us what you intend to do-just do it!

Dunno. I am all agog, waiting for Jabba's proof that a 14th century faker would be precluded from putting real blood on a cloth somehow.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Dunno. I am all agog, waiting for Jabba's proof that a 14th century faker would be precluded from putting real blood on a cloth somehow.

Hell, Dr. Kevorkian used his own blood in his artwork to get the red color he wanted.

 

[pakeha]

Numerousclaims[/U]" 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. ...

That's a most remarkable reply.
Is there some reason to ignore Dave Mo's posts as well as catsmate1's?


As Dinwar put it:

...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.

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. ...

We really have entered a different level of thread here, I think.
It's the first time I've read posts criticising the refutation of an article which the poster has yet to read.
That is, outside of the CT forum.

...- 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. ..

This particular post shows an insistence on reverting to perceived courtroom etiquette when discussing a matter of technical analysis.
Amusing, but we've agreed on several occasions this is an unacceptable tactic.
Why? Because it's ineffectual and manipulative.

In any case, it has yet to be demonstrated there IS blood on the TS.
I don't see how the conclusion "the carbon dating must be wrong" follows from the presence of blood and, of course, the lack of understanding of how a 14th century forger producing the effects the pro-authenticity proponents claim to see in the TS.

 

[David Mo]

Jabba:

1. Adler and Heller’s work isn’t conclusive. They found circumstantial evidence for blood.

“With regard to the "blood," Meacham cites the tests by two nonforensic scientists, none of which were specific for blood. Forensic expert John Fischer finds their conclusions untenable. In fact, similar results can be obtained with a tempera paint.” - “Comments on The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”. http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm.

2. Adler and Heller present subjective opinions as evidence. They interpret some white marks near the “blood” as serum. Dr. Barbet interprets it in different ways, i.e. as being water.

3. Their conclusions aren’t quantitative. It is impossible to discuss and reduplicate them.

4. Frache and McCrone did tests for blood and all were negative. A&H reply they weren’t suitable for ancient blood. But A&H never justify their tests in that sense. A&H tests are personal methods never tested in Archaeometry. You can look for them with Google. You will not find any article doing reference of them.

5. Even if A&H had demonstrated the presence of blood on the Shroud, their tests will be non conclusive because hypothetical blood could have been painted.

6. Bood or not blood, stains on the back of neck aren’t natural marks. They were painted.

Conclusion:
“There is no blood on the Shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood have failed18 (although some investigators unrigorously concluded that blood was present after conducting numerous forensic tests for iron, protein, albumin, etc., which came up positive because these materials are indeed on the Shroud in the form of tempera paint). Old blood is not bright red, and no amount of bilirubin can explain that away. Real blood mats on hair, and does not form perfect rivulets and spiral flows. Real blood does not contain red ochre, vermilion, and alizarin red pigments. Real blood and its organic derivatives have refractive indices much less than red ochre or vermilion, and they can be easily distinguished using Becke line movement under a light microscope. McCrone's examination of the red particles on the Shroud samples revealed no blood or blood derivatives.”. (STEVEN D. SCHAFERSMAN: “Unraveling the Shroud of Turin”)

 

[Jabba]

...And stop telling us what you intend to do-just do it!

Giordano,
- I was trying to answer the following question from David Mo. "And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?"
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Giordano,
- I was trying to answer the following question from David Mo. "And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?"
--- Jabba

Allow me to help you out.

The correct answer is "absolutely nothing".


You're welcome.

 

[catsmate]

Allow me to help you out.

The correct answer is "absolutely nothing".


You're welcome.

Give that pharaoh a muffin.

 

[pakeha]

^
Also garlands of flowers, sweet incense, jars of the finest beer.

...- 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. ..

Any progress on proving the presence of blood?

 

[Slowvehicle]

^
Also garlands of flowers, sweet incense, jars of the finest beer.

^^ ^^
Slaves! Honey! Almonds! Precious kohl!

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- I was trying to answer the following question from David Mo. "And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?"
--- Jabba

You inadvertently overlooked my question in the same post: having failed so far, is there anything you will do differently in the future other than put your fingers in your ears and recycle your same discredited arguments?

You also failed to answer in earlier question of mine: is there anything I or anyone else can tell you, or any evidence we might present, that would change your mind as to the authenticity of the blood or the Shroud as a whole?

 

[The Don]

Will there be cake when this thread hits its first birthday ?



I've dipped in and out over the months, has Jabba or anyone else presented any evidence to refute the C14 dating ?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Will there be cake when this thread hits its first birthday ?



I've dipped in and out over the months, has Jabba or anyone else presented any evidence to refute the C14 dating ?

Watched this train wreck carefully so i can summarize: NOPE

 

[David Mo]

Giordano,
- I was trying to answer the following question from David Mo. "And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™?"
--- Jabba

Hey! This sentence isn't mine!

 

[The Don]

Watched this train wreck carefully so i can summarize: NOPE

That's what I thought. but I wanted to make sure that something hadn't snuck in there.

I see that at the moment the discussion seems to revolve around whether or not there is blood on the shroud. I presume that's because bringing Jabba back to the C14 dating was a little tedious.

 

[carlitos]

Hey! This sentence isn't mine!

Nope:

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]

That's what I thought. but I wanted to make sure that something hadn't snuck in there.

I see that at the moment the discussion seems to revolve around whether or not there is blood on the shroud. I presume that's because bringing Jabba back to the C14 dating was a little tedious.

Well, that and the fact that Rich believes that showing the vaguest suggestion of a hint of a possibility that there might be "blood" on the cloth that wasn't wrapped around the anatomically incorrect stylized Byzantine representation of a figure, "blood" present in patterns that could not be caused by actual blood leaking from, seeping from, or being absorbed from, an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being wrapped, "blood" inaccurately representing "wounds" inaccurately depicted on the etc.; automatically simply invalidates the ¹⁴C dates.