Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

Hey! This sentence isn't mine!

'S'OK, David...I don't mind if you use it...

 

[catsmate]

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.

Well said. It's the classic thought pattern of a believer, anything that can be distorted to support the existing beliefs is embraced no matter how stupid this appears to others.

 

[pakeha]

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.

And this brings me back to to my hobby-horse.
Yes, back to Bruges.
And the Holy Blood Cathedral.

Real believers derive a deep spiritual satisfaction from just being in the vicinity of the Holy Blood relic.
They weep, they feel authentically blessed, they come out of the chapel profoundly moved.

It was an amazing thing to witness; I've never posted up my own photos I took at the time, from respect.

The TS bleevers are another kettle of fish (trigo de otro cantal).
Paywalls, traveling exhibitions, quantumality, you name it, they indulge in it.
They really seem more akin to chem-trail bleevers than anything else.[/hobby-horse]

So.
Is there blood datable to the 1st century on that 14th century linen or not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

And this brings me back to to my hobby-horse.
Yes, back to Bruges.
And the Holy Blood Cathedral.

Real believers derive a deep spiritual satisfaction from just being in the vicinity of the Holy Blood relic.
They weep, they feel authentically blessed, they come out of the chapel profoundly moved.

It was an amazing thing to witness; I've never posted up my own photos I took at the time, from respect.

The TS bleevers are another kettle of fish (trigo de otro cantal).
Paywalls, traveling exhibitions, quantumality, you name it, they indulge in it.
They really seem more akin to chem-trail bleevers than anything else.[/hobby-horse]

So.
Is there blood datable to the 1st century on that 14th century linen or not?

No. There is not.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
So.
Is there blood datable to the 1st century on that 14th century linen or not?

Nope. There's no evidence of any blood residue of any age on the shroud.
Also I can't offhand think of any way to date blood over that time period with any accuracy.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Indirect Evidence/Blood

- OK. I was finally able to get over to Union College. They carry “Applied Optics,” but not the “Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal.” I did get the “h index” for each journal – AO got a 112, while CSFS only got a 10. (Note that “Nature” gets a 734.) Both journals claim to be “peer reviewed.”
- I got a copy of the Applied Optics article – three relatively simple pages that I can’t really judge for myself without more study in terminology and concepts. And while H&A felt convinced of the blood, they allowed that they couldn’t say proof positive because the “sticky tape” of their sample had been made “optically intractable” by an earlier test and they were unable to do the test that could have proven their conclusion.
- I was going to provide a quote, but so far, I haven’t figured out how to scan an article with my new printer+.

- I know that you guys don’t like my courtroom approach, but just in case a neutral kind of person someday reads this stuff, I want to point out a bit of circumstantial evidence for some objectivity in H&A’s research. Adler was Jewish – and while I don’t know about Heller, “Heller” appears to be a somewhat common Jewish name… Who knows what might help?
- I must admit that I’m not especially impressed with the AO article, but the "peers" must have been a little impressed (at least), and I do need to understand why they were doing what they did, and the importance of what they found before I can really judge.

- Meanwhile, I’ll try one more time to get a copy of the CSFS article. I’ll also try to track down the different secondary articles that have shaped my judgment about blood so far -- and see what research those authors were basing their own conclusions upon…

- I never said this would be quick -- but, I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

Both journals claim to be “peer reviewed.”

Anything can claim to be peer reviewed. And they can do it honestly if they give papers to other people to read before publication. VALID peer review, on the other hand, is much trickier. And I've seen some pretty funny errors in articles published in valid, well-respected, peer-reviewed journals.

And as a general rule of thumb, don't get bogged down in impact stats. That's just an indication of popularity. A lot of extremely good research gets done by fairly low-impact journals, such as museum Transactions, memoirs, Special Papers issued by various groups, etc. We're dealing with a rather obscure topic here, and that means that obscure journals will address it.

- I got a copy of the Applied Optics article – three relatively simple pages that I can’t really judge for myself without more study in terminology and concepts.

This, after 20 years? After ten years of studying paleontology I read taphonomy textbooks for fun. After 20 years you should be very proficient at reading these things. This says extremely bad things about your research skills (though considering most of us think they're non-existent anyway, it doesn't actually change anything).

And while H&A felt convinced of the blood, they allowed that they couldn’t say proof positive because the “sticky tape” of their sample had been made “optically intractable” by an earlier test and they were unable to do the test that could have proven their conclusion.

So they admit their methodology was flawed, and they can't actually support their conclusions, but we're expected to agree anyway.

- I know that you guys don’t like my courtroom approach,

It's not that we don't like it. It's that your approach is wildly inappropriate and demonstrably dishonest. You have no interest in providing an actual summary of the current knowledge of either side to anyone; rather, you are attempting--and you've admitted as much--to twist the discussion to the point where both sides appear equally valid. That's called "lying".

Adler was Jewish – and while I don’t know about Heller, “Heller” appears to be a somewhat common Jewish name… Who knows what might help?

This has nothing to do with anything. The term "jewish" can apply to a race as well as a religion, and you expect us to take your mere speculation at to Heller's religion as some sort of evidence! Jabba, if this WERE a courtroom you'd be in jail for contempt.

and I do need to understand why they were doing what they did, and the importance of what they found before I can really judge.

You really should have thought about that before you spent 100+ pages using them for support.

 

[TimCallahan]

Bottom Line: As demonstrated by the length of this thread (109 pages and counting), no amount of evidence contrary to their belief makes any impression on shroudies. The pigments on the shroud have been shown not to be blood. Carbon dating has shown it to be medieval in origin. Had carbon dating placed the origin of the shroud in the first century, the shroudies would have trumpeted it to the skies. When it didn't go the way they wanted it, they immediately attacked the testing - after the fact.

This sort of denial is a characteristic of pseudo-science, driven by ideology, whether political or religious, rather than an honest search for the truth.

 

[pakeha]

Nope. There's no evidence of any blood residue of any age on the shroud.
Also I can't offhand think of any way to date blood over that time period with any accuracy.

How about a session with a Ouija board ?

- ... And while H&A felt convinced of the blood, they allowed that they couldn’t say proof positive because the “sticky tape” of their sample had been made “optically intractable” by an earlier test and they were unable to do the test that could have proven their conclusion.

....

- I know that you guys don’t like my courtroom approach, but just in case a neutral kind of person someday reads this stuff, I want to point out a bit of circumstantial evidence for some objectivity in H&A’s research. Adler was Jewish – and while I don’t know about Heller, “Heller” appears to be a somewhat common Jewish name… Who knows what might help?
- I must admit that I’m not especially impressed with the AO article, but the "peers" must have been a little impressed (at least), and I do need to understand why they were doing what they did, and the importance of what they found before I can really judge. ...

Thanks for the update on the original paper of Heller & Adler.
If I understand you correctly, they themselves do not draw the conclusion there was actually human blood on the shroud?

I'm not sure I understand your point concerning the researchers' sirnames. What exactly do you mean?

 

[catsmate]

How about a session with a Ouija board ?

About as reliable as shroudie science.

Thanks for the update on the original paper of Heller & Adler.
If I understand you correctly, they themselves do not draw the conclusion there was actually human blood on the shroud?

I'm not sure I understand your point concerning the researchers' sirnames. What exactly do you mean?

"By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a porphyrin),
we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged blood areas of the
Shroud of Turin" was what they said in 1980. However their claim is nonsense, all they showed was that a porphyrin was present. They also claimed the presence of iron and protein were proof of blood, rather than allowing for other sources such as the iron based pigments and the tempera binder for the pigments. McCrone demolished their claims in detail in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin.

As for the "Jewish" names I suspect Jabba is attempting to imply that supposed non-xian scientists would be less biased. Which doesn't in any way mitigate their junk science.
Interestingly Adler's daughter says of her father that he "could also be a bombastic blowhard who couldn't admit when he was wrong, a surly curmudgeon.....".

 

[pakeha]

"By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a porphyrin),
we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged blood areas of the
Shroud of Turin" was what they said in 1980. However their claim is nonsense, all they showed was that a porphyrin was present. They also claimed the presence of iron and protein were proof of blood, rather than allowing for other sources such as the iron based pigments and the tempera binder for the pigments. McCrone demolished their claims in detail in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin.

As for the "Jewish" names I suspect Jabba is attempting to imply that supposed non-xian scientists would be less biased. Which doesn't in any way mitigate their junk science.
Interestingly Adler's daughter says of her father that he "could also be a bombastic blowhard who couldn't admit when he was wrong, a surly curmudgeon.....".

Just a pre-aperitivo thought- wouldn't the religious/ethnic definition of the sponsors of the study be more to the point, rather that of the researchers themselves?

 

[Mashuna]

I'm not sure I understand your point concerning the researchers' sirnames. What exactly do you mean?

Although the surnames have absolutely no impact on the findings, or any relevance to the Shroud at all, this still counts as one of the best points Jabba has made in the thread for the pro-authenticity side. Which must be kind of embarrassing for him.

 

[Dinwar]

Just a pre-aperitivo thought- wouldn't the religious/ethnic definition of the sponsors of the study be more to the point, rather that of the researchers themselves?

Only in as much as it would be a very, very bad indicator of some potential biases. They're not Christian, so if they'd found that it was fake it might be worth looking to see if they'd screwed up. Considering the magnitude to which they DID screw up, though, it's a wash.

 

[catsmate]

Just a pre-aperitivo thought- wouldn't the religious/ethnic definition of the sponsors of the study be more to the point, rather that of the researchers themselves?

Indeed. And it was sponsored by STURP, of which Heller and Adler were both members. STURP wasn't formally associated with the RCC, or any religious group, but given the statements and actions of many of its members was clearly biased in favour of the shroud being genuine. This is one of the reasons why less biased scientists, like Gove, wanted them exclused from the radiocarbon dating process.

 

[Jabba]

Friendly Debate

- Just to point out that I have come to (or, am coming to) recognize just how second hand (or, even third hand) my evidence is…

- I came to the Randi forum trying to evaluate two of my opinions: 1) that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic, and 2) my model for effective debate works. I knew that I couldn’t really test my model here – unless I was extremely lucky – cause, I wouldn’t be able to fully install it here – but, I figured that I might be able to make it work anyway, or at least learn some valuable lessons while trying.
- I warned everyone in advance, that even were I able to fully install the model, developing a really effective debate would likely be quite tedious…

- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba

 

[dafydd]

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

Yes, washed down with Bloody Marys.

 

[dafydd]

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba

You may be telling the truth about your opinions but you are not telling the truth about the shroud and you continually avoid the point about a forger putting blood on a cloth. I believe that you are just seeking attention here.

 

[Resume]

- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.

After all this time, you still don't understand the burden of proof.

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba

You can wish-think all your want, believe all you want, hope for magic all you want, but what you need to do in this is provide evidence for the shroud's authenticity. This is what you've been promising, but not delivering.

Now, cake.

 

[Dinwar]

I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence,

Lie. There are other factors, such as the weave of the cloth. Also, does it MATTER if we only have one piece of evidence? If that one piece cannot exist if your idea is true, your idea is false. So one piece is all we need.

and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.

So your two reasons are "You only have one conclusive proof that the shroud is fake, and I'm confused." Hardly a stunning example of excellent scholarship there, Jabba.

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…

Completely irrelevant. Even if the shroud were from the 1st century, you'd have to prove that it was actually the burial shroud of a guy that rose form the dead at minimum. The shroud itself certainly won't get you there, so we can essentially ignore it when it comes to proof that Jesus was real.

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

I've no doubt you're telling the truth about your opinions and intentions. The validity of your data and your logic are what I find lacking (I'd say I doubt them, but honestly, that's giving it too much credit at this point). You can believe whatever bat-crap crazy garbage you want and it doesn't bother me in the least. When you attempt to convince me or others it's true, you need data and a sound chain of reasoning. You have neither.

 

[catsmate]

- Just to point out that I have come to (or, am coming to) recognize just how second hand (or, even third hand) my evidence is…

- I came to the Randi forum trying to evaluate two of my opinions: 1) that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic, and 2) my model for effective debate works. I knew that I couldn’t really test my model here – unless I was extremely lucky – cause, I wouldn’t be able to fully install it here – but, I figured that I might be able to make it work anyway, or at least learn some valuable lessons while trying.
- I warned everyone in advance, that even were I able to fully install the model, developing a really effective debate would likely be quite tedious…

- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba

Anyone who claims, after looking at the evidence, that there's an 80% chance that the shroud is genuine is deluding themself.
And your "debating style" appears to be designed to obstruct proper scientific debate as much as possible.