Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Parsman]

If you have access try and watch the first episode of a new history TV series on BBC called "The Dark Ages: An Age of Light". It has some very interesting information on early christian art. The presenter points out that there is no description of Jesus in the Bible. As far as I am aware there is no physical description of Jesus in any of the non-canonical gospels either. There is no artistic representation of Jesus surviving that dates before the start of the 2nd Century A.D. The earliest representations of Jesus in art are of a beardless young man with curly hair carrying a magic staff to perform his miracles. A little like Harry Potter without his glasses.

The presenter argues that this is a representation of a hopeful and happy Christ, taken from the familiar (to members of classical civilization) representation of the god Apollo. Later when Christianity becomes the religion of the late Roman Empire a more majestic figure is required and Christ becomes depicted with the attributes of Jove or Zeus. I remember a John Romer documentary which argues the same as this show, that the new look for the newly powerful Jesus came from the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias.

The point being...

Even if the carbon dating was wrong (which Jabba hasn't shown)

Even if there is blood on the cloth (which Jabba hasn't shown)

The image could be of anybody because we just don't know what Jesus looked like! That it looks so much like the image that medieval worshipers had of their sacrificial being would make most fair minded and skeptical people see more evidence of a medieval fake than the real deal.

 

[TimCallahan]

If you have access try and watch the first episode of a new history TV series on BBC called "The Dark Ages: An Age of Light". It has some very interesting information on early christian art. The presenter points out that there is no description of Jesus in the Bible. As far as I am aware there is no physical description of Jesus in any of the non-canonical gospels either. There is no artistic representation of Jesus surviving that dates before the start of the 2nd Century A.D. The earliest representations of Jesus in art are of a beardless young man with curly hair carrying a magic staff to perform his miracles. A little like Harry Potter without his glasses.

The presenter argues that this is a representation of a hopeful and happy Christ, taken from the familiar (to members of classical civilization) representation of the god Apollo. Later when Christianity becomes the religion of the late Roman Empire a more majestic figure is required and Christ becomes depicted with the attributes of Jove or Zeus. I remember a John Romer documentary which argues the same as this show, that the new look for the newly powerful Jesus came from the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias.

The point being...

Even if the carbon dating was wrong (which Jabba hasn't shown)

Even if there is blood on the cloth (which Jabba hasn't shown)

The image could be of anybody because we just don't know what Jesus looked like! That it looks so much like the image that medieval worshipers had of their sacrificial being would make most fair minded and skeptical people see more evidence of a medieval fake than the real deal.

Thank you for making that excellent point! I hadn't thought of that before regarding the Shroud of Turin; but you're absolutely right about the image of the bearded Jesus being essentially of medieval origin.

 

[dafydd]

Thank you for making that excellent point! I hadn't thought of that before regarding the Shroud of Turin; but you're absolutely right about the image of the bearded Jesus being essentially of medieval origin.

True. If Jesus did exist then he would have been an Aramaic Jew and bear not the slightest resemblance to the movie star Jesus of the Middle Ages.

 

[Dinwar]

...but I’d appreciate any tips you guys have regarding such things.

Summarize them in your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing something accurately, you don't actually understand it.

- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research,

You appear easily impressed by anyone who agrees with you.

- I understand that the stains being blood won’t mean a whole lot in itself, but it is the first “premise” in my syllogism.

I look forward to you addressing the other 7 points I raised, and the 10 points Slowvehicle raised. Because this really is just another of your "This is what I'm going to tell you" posts, sprinkled with your feelings about data and completely lacking any actual data.

 

[pakeha]

...- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research, and I’ll try to summarize in the near future...

I'm looking forward to that summarisation.

 

[Giordano]

- 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

Hi,
I've beem trying to obtain as many of these citations as I can on line through my university library. The ones I could find so far are surprisingly disappointing, in that they show very little actual data, and what they do show often doesn't appear to support their conclusions. Many of the objections to this work have already been presented here, and I agree with these objections. But I will try to hunt down more and present my own summary soon. Until then, here is my take so far:

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 I can' t find so far. The journals are either relatively obscure and/or the on line archives don't go back far enough. I haven't a clue what journal reference 21 is citing.

6 and 11 present relatively little actual data and the data that is shown for the Shroud doesn't really match the authentic blood controls as I see it. I'll explain this opinion in more detail very soon. In fact the authors are very cautious in their conclusions in 11 (a paper you previously cited a page or so back).

13 is a review article: it doesn't present any new data, it just discusses again the data already in other papers

20 is a popular magazine article, not a peer-reviewed presentation of actual scientific data

22 private communications don't count because they are impossible to inspect or evaluate. It is the same as "a little birdy told me."

So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.

 

[Dinwar]

To be fair to #13, meta-analyses can be useful. They don't say anything new, but it's often useful to examine a question from a broader perspective than can be accomplished in a more typical article explaining one experiment.

 

[David Mo]

Bibliography in sindonist work is almost always circular. Someone writes an article and everybody quotes someone who quotes someone who quotes the first one. (And not even accurately. The “rumourology”, you know). It is even possible that the first one quotes someone who quotes himself. Sometimes it can happen that the chain is broken. This happens when a handbook is quoted. Or an article published in a parish magazine or similar. It is not impossible to find a PDF document quoted even in a peer reviewed (sic) article. Well, sindonology is a “family” science.

But I find very interesting a Jabba’s comment.

“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.”​

(5th December 2012, 04:42 PM #4346).

It is important because Applied Optics’ article is the first link of the chain of sindonist quotations. I suppose it is illegal to scan the entire article, but I think it is not a problem with only this paragraph.

Do it, please. I'm very interested.

 

[pakeha]

...So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.

Thus far, all lines of evidence claims posted up by Jabba have fizzled out and it will be interesting to see if this one does as well.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Hi,
I've beem trying to obtain as many of these citations as I can on line through my university library. The ones I could find so far are surprisingly disappointing, in that they show very little actual data, and what they do show often doesn't appear to support their conclusions. Many of the objections to this work have already been presented here, and I agree with these objections. But I will try to hunt down more and present my own summary soon. Until then, here is my take so far:

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 I can' t find so far. The journals are either relatively obscure and/or the on line archives don't go back far enough. I haven't a clue what journal reference 21 is citing.

6 and 11 present relatively little actual data and the data that is shown for the Shroud doesn't really match the authentic blood controls as I see it. I'll explain this opinion in more detail very soon. In fact the authors are very cautious in their conclusions in 11 (a paper you previously cited a page or so back).

13 is a review article: it doesn't present any new data, it just discusses again the data already in other papers

20 is a popular magazine article, not a peer-reviewed presentation of actual scientific data

22 private communications don't count because they are impossible to inspect or evaluate. It is the same as "a little birdy told me."

So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.

Most of these references have been covered before, e.g. Rogers, Heller, Adler, McCrone, a fact that Jabba knows well.
21 is the Legal Medical Annual, not generally available online except for some articles through PubMed. The article in question is "The Shroud of Turin: a pathologist's viewpoint" which appears to have been a unreviewed opinion piece.

 

[archspoiler]

I'm in.[/QUOTE]

I have been drinking heavily since page 43. And I will continue to do so until this thread has died, been wrapped in linen, risen from the dead, and provided a far more interesting burial shroud for discussion than this one....

 

[Slowvehicle]

Most of these references have been covered before, e.g. Rogers, Heller, Adler, McCrone, a fact that Jabba knows well.
21 is the Legal Medical Annual, not generally available online except for some articles through PubMed. The article in question is "The Shroud of Turin: a pathologist's viewpoint" which appears to have been a unreviewed opinion piece.

FWIW, the local Universtiy Library is doing an interlibrary search...I may have a .PDF of the Bucklin article in the next couple of days.
I'll share.

 

[catsmate]

FWIW, the local Universtiy Library is doing an interlibrary search...I may have a .PDF of the Bucklin article in the next couple of days.
I'll share.

Excellent work, thanks for that. One of us should start collating these references and the responses to them, given that Jabba and the shroudies don't seem to want to.

 

[pakeha]

This is all good, indeed.
Let's see just what the articles and papers turn up!

 

[Jabba]

Bibliography in sindonist work is almost always circular. Someone writes an article and everybody quotes someone who quotes someone who quotes the first one. (And not even accurately. The “rumourology”, you know). It is even possible that the first one quotes someone who quotes himself. Sometimes it can happen that the chain is broken. This happens when a handbook is quoted. Or an article published in a parish magazine or similar. It is not impossible to find a PDF document quoted even in a peer reviewed (sic) article. Well, sindonology is a “family” science.

But I find very interesting a Jabba’s comment.

“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.”​

(5th December 2012, 04:42 PM #4346).

It is important because Applied Optics’ article is the first link of the chain of sindonist quotations. I suppose it is illegal to scan the entire article, but I think it is not a problem with only this paragraph.

Do it, please. I'm very interested.

David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.


--- Jabba

 

[Acleron]

I'm in.

I have been drinking heavily since page 43. And I will continue to do so until this thread has died, been wrapped in linen, risen from the dead, and provided a far more interesting burial shroud for discussion than this one....[/QUOTE]

Well I hope you don't get cirrhosis before then but the omens are not good.

 

[Dinwar]

Excellent work, thanks for that. One of us should start collating these references and the responses to them, given that Jabba and the shroudies don't seem to want to.

The fact that we have to even consider such a thing as compiling a list of references for the oposition rather strongly demonstrates the vapidity of said oposition.

To put it another way: After twenty freaking years Jabba's so incompetant that WE have to do his research for him?!

 

[pakeha]

Not just Jabba.
It seems the Shroudies in general are short on references or understanding the ones they quote.

Remember Dimitri Kouznetsov?
His research lives on in Shroudie websites.

 

[David Mo]

David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.


--- Jabba

Thank you, Jabba.

 

[catsmate]

The fact that we have to even consider such a thing as compiling a list of references for the oposition rather strongly demonstrates the vapidity of said oposition.

To put it another way: After twenty freaking years Jabba's so incompetant that WE have to do his research for him?!

Yes. Jabba's already admitted he hasn't read most of the material he (repeatedly) cites as supporting his case, nor does he seem to plan to do any real research.

Not just Jabba.
It seems the Shroudies in general are short on references or understanding the ones they quote.

Meh, like most woo this is to be expected. They don't have real science to cite so they have to pad it out with dubious, unreviewed or downright fraudulent material to make it seem like there's something there or quote mine or "creatively interpret" actual material to support them. Rather like the climate change deniers and their attempts to create uncertainty.

Remember Dimitri Kouznetsov?
His research lives on in Shroudie websites.

Ah yes, even most of the creationists have abandoned that fraudster. Though the shroudies also cite Max Frei and his amazing pollen tapes too.