Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

Because you apparently didn't read it the first time, Jabba, here's a link you really should read:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Abelard%20for%20Today.HTM

In particular, read the section titled "No Package Deals". In brief, in order for you to be right you must demonstrate the following to be true about the shroud:

* Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
* Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
* Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
* Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
* Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
* Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
* No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed

You can't prove the first one. We've disproven it (C14 dating and the weave of the cloth). You can't prove the fourth one. Others have disproven it (the anatomical errors). You can't prove the third one. Others have disproven it (the fading of the image). You can't prove the rest, and haven't even tried.

ETA: Something to bear in mind, Jabba: Abelard was on YOUR side. He was a 13th century theologian, and as I recall fairly highly respected (I've been trying to find Sic et Non for a while now, so I've done a bit of research on him). YOUR OWN SIDE DISAGREES WITH YOUR METHODS. A MEDIEVAL MONK would find your methods insulting. You may want to think about that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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.

Quality is infinitely more important than quality.

- 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…

Unfortunately, the universe doesn't conform to what you, I, or anybody else wants to be true. It just is as it is. Wish in one hand, ◊◊◊◊ in the other and see which one fills up first.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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

Does it really continue to elude you that you're in a Forum founded by a bloke who's spent the greater part of his life trying to make it as clear as possible to the Great Unwashed™ that there's no such ****** thing as magic?

Do you not realise that your 'arguments' amount to no more than a child's insistence that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real?


Friendly debate? You have to be kidding.

All you're doing now is insulting the intelligence of the people who have tried to set you straight and it's not only severely lacking in friendliness - it's outright contemptible.

 

[pgwenthold]

Since Jabba wants to play Courtroom Drama, let's just do this:

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

You state there is only one piece of evidence. That is all that is needed to discount the whole thing. If the DNA of the defendant doesn't match that of the perp found at the scene, then the defendant could not have been the perp, it doesn't matter how much other circumstantial crap you try to create.

 

[Akhenaten]

Since Jabba wants to play Courtroom Drama, let's just do this:

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

I think you're giving the defence attorney more credit than is due. The tag line "It ain't no joke, if you don't pay the note" fom Operation Repo is probably more appropriate to the standard of the case we've seen presented*.



* for values of '"presented" that include "hinted at being lined up to be considered for presentation any day week month year now."

 

[Slowvehicle]

- 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

Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents ¹⁴C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?

 

[Agatha]

- 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…

This is a good thing, it means you are at last learning to evaluate a source. You have a long way to go, don't turn back.

- I came to the Randi forum trying to evaluate two of my opinions: 1) that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic,

Which it isn't.

and 2) my model for effective debate works.

Which it doesn't - at least not under these circumstances.

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 hope that you will have learned that your model doesn't have universal applicability; in particular that it doesn't apply to questions of fact, or to scientific investigations.

It may have a place in debates about matters of opinion, where effective argument can sway people from one side to another. But it will never, and should never, be used in debates about facts, because facts stand by themselves and are not dependent on whether one side can argue better than another. Thus, it's wholly inapplicable to this shroud discussion.

- 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…

Tedious and inapplicable, which is why everyone refused to allow you to use it here.

- 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…

That is incredibly disappointing, given the references and facts given to you in this thread, and the abject lack of any evidence to support the shroud being authentic. I suspect you have not understood as much of the evidence as you think you have.

- 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.

This is nonsense. The carbon dating is an absolute fact, and all you have to put against it is feelings, wishes and half-remembered second hand anecdotes.

- 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…

This is utterly baffling. The shroud being a fake has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of the Jesus story being true. You wishing the Jesus story to be true has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of it being true. If you want to have faith, go right ahead; nobody really cares whether you do or not. Facts don't change because you wish them to be true, every child learns this when they recognise that Santa and the tooth fairy are fun but fictional.

- 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.

Again, this is quite baffling. The shroud being a mediaeval fake has no bearing on your ability to tell the truth about your opinions or your intentions. As for there being 'magic' in the world - you do realise where you are posting? This is a sceptics' site, not a "I wish my woo is true" site. If magic and miracles and other non-existent stuff is what you want, post on a site for the credulous.

 

[pakeha]

- 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.

80%?
Bring on the rest of your evidence and let's see what you have that is so compelling.

Yes, washed down with Bloody Marys.

I'm in.

 

[abaddon]

- 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…

I will just focus on this point.

All that has been demonstrated is that the shroud is a medieval fake. It matters not a whit what you want to be true. It says nothing more than a medieval faker made the shroud and that is proven. It says nothing at all about the existence of god or jebus or anything else, just that this particular piece of fabric is a medieval fake.

The real question is, why is your faith so bound up in an obvious fake artifact?

If you accept that the shroud is fake would you abandon your religion? I would bet not.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:



That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:



That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.

Amazing. Thank you...

 

[Resume]

With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:



That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.

So I'm guessing someone somewhere is working out how to use this 3-D fax/printer with porn.

Hey, a 3-D shroud should be a cake walk.

 

[dafydd]

More on the Zand Beest

 

[catsmate]

Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents ¹⁴C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?

A good summary but there's one point I'd nitpick: there *is" iron on the shroud in the form of iron (III) oxide, as hematite part of the red ochre pigment used to paint the image. This was shown by microscopical and chemical analyses.

 

[Slowvehicle]

A good summary but there's one point I'd nitpick: there *is" iron on the shroud in the form of iron (III) oxide, as hematite part of the red ochre pigment used to paint the image. This was shown by microscopical and chemical analyses.

Thank you. I can only claim youth and inexperience mitigated by long years of faithful service...

I had iron on the brain when I meant to type "potassium".

Please don't make me re-read the whole post as penance...

 

[catsmate]

Thank you. I can only claim youth and inexperience mitigated by long years of faithful service...

I had iron on the brain when I meant to type "potassium".

Please don't make me re-read the whole post as penance...

No worries, have a muffin for your efforts it, was other than that one point, an excellent summary.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No worries, have a muffin for your efforts it, was other than that one point, an excellent summary.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/162724fb2ad0e1c8ec.png[/qimg]

TY Om ñom ñom ñom...

 

[Multivac]

Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents ¹⁴C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?

Yes, but apart from that, what makes you think the shroud is a fake?

With apologies to the Monty python team.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

- Just to let you know I’m still around.

- I have a book entitled “Archeological Chemistry – III,” published in 1984 by the American Chemical Society. One chapter, pp 447 – 476, is entitled “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin.” This chapter was written by Jumper, Adler, Jackson, Pellicori, Heller and Druzik. Pages 458 to 462 apparently refer to all of the work done by STURP regarding the “blood stains.” The following is the literature cited in that section. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any of these are on line…

6. Pellicori, S. F. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 1913-20.
7. Pellicori, S. F. ; Evans, M. S. Archaeology 1981, 34 , 34--43.
10. Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F.]. Biol. Photogr . Assoc. 1981, 49, 71-85.
11. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 2742--44.
12. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci.] . 1981, 14 , 81-103.
13. McCrone, W. C.; Skirius, C. Microscope 1980, 28, 105-14.
14. McCrone, W. C. Microscope 1980, 28 , 115-28.
15. Ibid., 1981, 29, 19-38.
16. Schwalbe, L. A.; Rogers, R. N. Anal. Chim. Acta 1982, 135, 3--49.
20. Weaver, K. F. National Geographic 1980, 157, 730-53.
21. Bucklin, R. In Leg. Med. Annu. 1981.
22. Bollone, Pierluigi Baima. Private commu nication. Also c.f. , Sindon, 30, December 1981.

- I could scan pages 458-462, but I assume that it isn’t legal (or proper?) to post all 5 pages. I’ll try to look up how much is proper to post, but I’d appreciate any tips you guys have regarding such things.
- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research, and I’ll try to summarize in the near future.

- I now know how to determine, on line, what Journals my library carries – that took awhile – and it carries some, if not most of those sited. As soon as possible, I’ll make the trip and see what specifically they have to offer.
- I have run into some interesting stuff regarding the “blood” and will hopefully be able to eventually provide a convincing argument that the stains probably (if not surely) are, indeed, blood.
- I understand that the stains being blood won’t mean a whole lot in itself, but it is the first “premise” in my syllogism.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

It is a glimmer of hope that you admit that blood by itself proves nothing. I am also glad to see that you are beginning real research.