Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

" The first of these two are the experts who really do try to be honest; their research and analysis and conclusions may be grossly flawed, but they honestly do not see it, either because they are too biased or insufficiently versed in the necessary discipline. Among supernatural believers I would place Montague Keen in this category. For religious believers in general I would place many or even most of the priests in the Catholic Church and at least a large minority of Protestant reverends, pastors, etc. For the Turin Shroud specifically, I am unsure who, if anyone, I would put in this group."

Maybe the Jacksons?
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Garrette.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, and no, and I think this is important. I'm going to generalize to make a point; I recognize that there are many types of believers with many types of motivations, but in my experience these three types prevail. I think these categories apply to all forms of belief, not just religious.

The first two types fall within a larger group broadly considered experts among the believer community. The first of these two are the experts who really do try to be honest; their research and analysis and conclusions may be grossly flawed, but they honestly do not see it, either because they are too biased or insufficiently versed in the necessary discipline. Among supernatural believers I would place Montague Keen in this category. For religious believers in general I would place many or even most of the priests in the Catholic Church and at least a large minority of Protestant reverends, pastors, etc. For the Turin Shroud specifically, I am unsure who, if anyone, I would put in this group.

The second of the expert group are those who are knowingly dishonest and misleading. They know their research is bunk; they know their conclusions are invalid; they simply don't care, or at least they care less about the dishonesty than they do about the result of perpetuatiing it. I think at least a few members of STURP fall into this category. Among supernatural believers these people are legion.

Finally, there is the group into which I believe Jabba falls. The true believer who believes because he has been raised in it or emotionally drawn to it and who has presented with the supposedly expert and honest testimony of the people in the first two groups. From Jabba's point of view there is simply no reason to doubt this testimony. The summaries of their evidence comes from people who are acclaimed (even if only within the circles of believers) and is presented convincingly for any layman without specific expertise to counter it. Moreover, any counter-arguments presented by skeptics have apparently been dealt with by the experts and proclaimed to be wanting; plus, when the believer decides to check out skeptical arguments first hand he runs into a barrage of alien thinking that seems to dwell on minutia and arcana without considering the whole picture, not to mention the skeptic approach is so vastly different from that of the believer that it feels rude and bitter, the expected traits of the terminally wrong.

From Jabba's point of view we are not saying he is wrong about the Shroud; we are saying he is wrong about all the people he has trusted and that they are not only wrong but usually intentionally so.

It's an artifact to us; to Jabba it's a system and a worldview.

Well summarised. I think your 'first type' includes a number of people (Heller, Adler, Rogers, Bucklin and others for the shroud) who are quite scientifically literate in their field but blinded by their beliefs in some area, like the shroud. I'd also place Benford and (probably) Marino in here.
Kouznetsov and (probably) Frei fall into the second category.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

- Once again, sorry to be so slow. I do have some good excuses. If you actually want to 'hear' my excuses, write to me at [email protected].

- Anyway, one of the things I've been trying to do is to come up with my own summary of the H/A article in Applied Optics. After re-reading and re-reading, I couldn't come up with anything more useful than their summary, and the one offered by Ford at http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf, pages 2 and 3.
- Mostly, I should admit that I don't have enough knowledge in this area to judge for myself, and have to accept the opinions of "experts," to the extent that the "experts" agree with each other...

- Anyway, the following is H/A's summary.
IV. Summary
The following tests were performed:
(a) visual examination;
(b) positive association with iron by x-ray fluores*
cence;
(c) positive Sore.t absorption and reasonable corre*
spondence to expected met-hemoglobin visible spectral
shapes by both transmission and reflection spectros*
copy; and
(d) positive chemical conversion to a fluorimetrically
characteristic prophyrin species does confirm and give
positive presumpti ve evidence for identifica tion of the
alleged blood areas on the Shroud of Turin as, in fact,
containingblood.
This does, however, still leave open further questions.
Since the Shroud has undergone a fire with exposure to
intense heat under oxidative conditions, what other chemical species may be found in these same areas? Hopefully a larger sample of th is same material will permit examination of this problem and allow us to further confirm spectrally the porphyrin formed as specifically protoporphyrin IX.

- the following is the Ford summary I quoted back in #4309
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

- If and when I get the chance, I'll begin a "murder board" @ http://shrouddebates.com/, where I'll post summaries of the different studies and arguments that I think support my claim that the "stains" on the Shroud involve real blood. If I get that far, I'll encourage you guys to add summaries of the studies and arguments that undermine that claim. We need to add them up.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

(a) visual examination;

These were the guys who couldn't bother to determine what would happen with their samples during analysis, then ran a test anyway, despite having damaged the samples. I doubt visual examination is sufficient.

(b) positive association with iron by x-ray fluores*
cence;

Two things: First, meh. Iron isn't exactly uncommon in pigments, plant parts, or even biochemicals. Second, the formatting errors suggest dishonesty on your part. I do not believe this is your own summary.

This does, however, still leave open further questions.
Since the Shroud has undergone a fire with exposure to
intense heat under oxidative conditions, what other chemical species may be found in these same areas?[/QUOTE]Oh dear Lord.....They forgot to ask one of the basic questions in archaeology (to wit: "What has happened to this, and how does it impact my analysis?"). This can only be called gross incompetence, and repeated basic errors of this kind call their entire testing protocol into question. Basically, the safest bet at this point is to assume these clowns were wrong--if they WERE right it was only by a lucky chance.

- If and when I get the chance, I'll begin a "murder board"

You can't marshal your arguments HERE. Why should we bother going anywhere else?

 

[Mashuna]

Mostly, I should admit that I don't have enough knowledge in this area to judge for myself, and have to accept the opinions of "experts," to the extent that the "experts" agree with each other.

But you don't know enough to determine who an expert is, so you're just choosing people who agree with your preconceptions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We need to add them up.

No we don't. This isn't a numbers game. It's not a question of how many people on each side say something, it's a question of how good the research is. The research will stand or fall on its own merits. This paper's lack of merits have been pointed out very clearly on this page. The paper does not show the presence of blood.

 

[TimCallahan]

Bottom line: Had the radiocarbon tests shown the Shroud was from the first century, the shroudies would have made no objection whatsoever about how they were done. It was only after they got results they didn't like - that the shroud was of medieval manufacture - that they started nit-picking every damn thing about the tests. In real science you abide by the results of the test, whether you like it or not. Ergo, the reaction of the shroudies amounts to pseudoscience.

The shroudie position is also one of faithlessness. That is to say, Christianity will continue regardless of the Shroud of Turin not being the burial shroud of Jesus. The implication of this being Jesus' funeral shroud is that the decay of the body would have caused the shroud to rot. Therefore, since the shroud didn't rot, Jesus had to have been resurrected. Of course, it's quite possible that the desiccation of the body in such a climate might well have stopped the body's decay fro causing the shroud to rot. Be that as it may, the shroudies are attempting to prove the resurrection, rather than accepting it on faith; just as creationists are attempting to prove the existence of God. Thus, like the creationists, the shroudies constitute, not a community of faith, but rather a community of faithlessness.

 

[TimCallahan]

duplicate post

 

[pakeha]

-...- If and when I get the chance, I'll begin a "murder board" @ http://shrouddebates.com/, where I'll post summaries of the different studies and arguments that I think support my claim that the "stains" on the Shroud involve real blood. If I get that far, I'll encourage you guys to add summaries of the studies and arguments that undermine that claim. We need to add them up. ...

Why not simply organise your information here?
Spamming your site is against the rules here.

 

[wollery]

Second, the formatting errors suggest dishonesty on your part. I do not believe this is your own summary.

Jabba states quite clearly that it is Heller and Adler's summary, because he couldn't come up with a better summary than the one they gave.

 

[Acleron]

Bottom line: Had the radiocarbon tests shown the Shroud was from the first century, the shroudies would have made no objection whatsoever about how they were done. It was only after they got results they didn't like - that the shroud was of medieval manufacture - that they started nit-picking every damn thing about the tests. In real science you abide by the results of the test, whether you like it or not. Ergo, the reaction of the shroudies amounts to pseudoscience.

The shroudie position is also one of faithlessness. That is to say, Christianity will continue regardless of the Shroud of Turin not being the burial shroud of Jesus. The implication of this being Jesus' funeral shroud is that the decay of the body would have caused the shroud to rot. Therefore, since the shroud didn't rot, Jesus had to have been resurrected. Of course, it's quite possible that the desiccation of the body in such a climate might well have stopped the body's decay fro causing the shroud to rot. Be that as it may, the shroudies are attempting to prove the resurrection, rather than accepting it on faith; just as creationists are attempting to prove the existence of God. Thus, like the creationists, the shroudies constitute, not a community of faith, but rather a community of faithlessness.

If I could expand on this very fair summary.

You abide by the evidence unless you can point to or produce equivalent or better evidence that invalidates the former. Nit picking, personal attacks and sheer making things up are all symptoms of a belief led agenda, an approach which is illuminated with failure.

 

[Giordano]

- Once again, sorry to be so slow. I do have some good excuses. If you actually want to 'hear' my excuses, write to me at [email protected].

- Anyway, one of the things I've been trying to do is to come up with my own summary of the H/A article in Applied Optics. After re-reading and re-reading, I couldn't come up with anything more useful than their summary, and the one offered by Ford at http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf, pages 2 and 3.
- Mostly, I should admit that I don't have enough knowledge in this area to judge for myself, and have to accept the opinions of "experts," to the extent that the "experts" agree with each other...

- Anyway, the following is H/A's summary.
IV. Summary
The following tests were performed:
(a) visual examination;
(b) positive association with iron by x-ray fluores*
cence;
(c) positive Sore.t absorption and reasonable corre*
spondence to expected met-hemoglobin visible spectral
shapes by both transmission and reflection spectros*
copy; and
(d) positive chemical conversion to a fluorimetrically
characteristic prophyrin species does confirm and give
positive presumpti ve evidence for identifica tion of the
alleged blood areas on the Shroud of Turin as, in fact,
containingblood.
This does, however, still leave open further questions.
Since the Shroud has undergone a fire with exposure to
intense heat under oxidative conditions, what other chemical species may be found in these same areas? Hopefully a larger sample of th is same material will permit examination of this problem and allow us to further confirm spectrally the porphyrin formed as specifically protoporphyrin IX.

- the following is the Ford summary I quoted back in #4309
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

- If and when I get the chance, I'll begin a "murder board" @ http://shrouddebates.com/, where I'll post summaries of the different studies and arguments that I think support my claim that the "stains" on the Shroud involve real blood. If I get that far, I'll encourage you guys to add summaries of the studies and arguments that undermine that claim. We need to add them up.

--- Jabba

Jabba,

Did you read my criticisms about the H/A article in post 4418? Or the other posts on this thread that discuss why the actual evidence presented in these papers is very weak or worse?

You shouldn't just cite these "summaries" when posters here have shown that they are inaccurate and do not reflect the actual data.

You have read the H/A Applied Optics publication. Can you provide any reasons you think my criticisms of it are it are inaccurate? Didn't the authors note that the real blood was a different color from the "blood" stains on the Shroud? Does the spectrogram of the real blood in Figure 2 look to you like it closely matches the "blood" stains on the Shroud? Even more interesting: other than fFigure 2 are any of the other results that are ascribed to this paper in your summary of it actually in the paper, or is the data for most of the authors' conclusions, in fact, missing?

Are you now going to say that my criticisms are "just my opinion?" and you have a different opinion? If so, I'll repeat a question I asked you earlier: is there anything I could say or evidence that I could present that would cause you to question this paper?

 

[Jabba]

Why not simply organise your information here?
Spamming your site is against the rules here.

Pakeha,
- I don't care whether or not anyone reads my site. If you notice, I haven't entered anything over there for a long time.
-What I need is a permanent space to which I can keep adding evidence (pro, as well as con). Over here, the best I can do is to keep repeating the last summary post, with whatever new evidence I have, newly attached...
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

These were the guys who couldn't bother to determine what would happen with their samples during analysis, then ran a test anyway, despite having damaged the samples. I doubt visual examination is sufficient.

Two things: First, meh. Iron isn't exactly uncommon in pigments, plant parts, or even biochemicals. Second, the formatting errors suggest dishonesty on your part. I do not believe this is your own summary.

This does, however, still leave open further questions.
Since the Shroud has undergone a fire with exposure to
intense heat under oxidative conditions, what other chemical species may be found in these same areas?[/

Oh dear Lord.....They forgot to ask one of the basic questions in archaeology (to wit: "What has happened to this, and how does it impact my analysis?"). This can only be called gross incompetence, and repeated basic errors of this kind call their entire testing protocol into question. Basically, the safest bet at this point is to assume these clowns were wrong--if they WERE right it was only by a lucky chance.

You can't marshal your arguments HERE. Why should we bother going anywhere else?

A few points regarding the Heller and Adler "tests":

• no use of polarised light microscopy as used by Walter McCrone to show the particles were pigments not blood residue
• the presence of iron is a non-issue as the shroud painting used iron sulphide and oxide pigments
• no definitive tests positive for hemoglobin only for prophyrin
• no use of the Becke test to differentiate blood residue from pigments
• use of x-ray fluorescence rather than x-ray diffraction

 

[Akhenaten]

Pakeha,
- I don't care whether or not anyone reads my site.

Luck's a fortune.

If you notice, I haven't entered anything over there for a long time.

I'm inclined to think that "no new information" would still be the case, whether anyone has noticed or not.

-What I need is a permanent space to which I can keep adding evidence (pro, as well as con).

You've got one.

What you don't got is any evidence (pro).

Over here, the best I can do is to keep repeating the last summary post, with whatever new evidence I have, newly attached.

No, you could actually do a whole heap better than that.

But you won't.

..
--- Jabba

Yeah. We know.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba,

Did you read my criticisms about the H/A article in post 4418? Or the other posts on this thread that discuss why the actual evidence presented in these papers is very weak or worse?

You shouldn't just cite these "summaries" when posters here have shown that they are inaccurate and do not reflect the actual data.

You have read the H/A Applied Optics publication. Can you provide any reasons you think my criticisms of it are it are inaccurate? Didn't the authors note that the real blood was a different color from the "blood" stains on the Shroud? Does the spectrogram of the real blood in Figure 2 look to you like it closely matches the "blood" stains on the Shroud? Even more interesting: other than fFigure 2 are any of the other results that are ascribed to this paper in your summary of it actually in the paper, or is the data for most of the authors' conclusions, in fact, missing?

Are you now going to say that my criticisms are "just my opinion?" and you have a different opinion? If so, I'll repeat a question I asked you earlier: is there anything I could say or evidence that I could present that would cause you to question this paper?

This. Absolutely this.

Jabba, this is why the discussion with you repeatedly takes turns that you consider to be rude or insulting. You ignore the comments of people who have actually read the source documents that you yourself have not read.

Giordano and others have read the papers that you haven't and have stated specifically the weaknesses. I and others have done this repeatedly on previous occasions.

Yet you choose to ignore it. If there is rude and insulting behavior in this thread it is yours. Read Giordano's post again and address that, otherwise you are tacticly admitting that you have nothing.

 

[Jabba]

- I only have so much time for this -- which keeps shrinking (give me a PM if you want to hear my excuses) -- and, this is what I do for fun, so I naturally give it as much time as reasonable, at least.
- Then note that essentially all my posts are responses to your questions, accusations and comments otherwise. No one should be insulted by my lack of attention to their qac's -- I'm attending to as much as I have time for which to attend.
- And then, I've asked you to elect some sort of "gatekeeper" to tell me which qac to answer next, but you won't do it. If you did, you'd see that I would totally follow your lead (for half of my time at least).
- Does anyone here actually see my point (in a non-sarcastic way)?

--- Jabba

 

[Acleron]

- I only have so much time for this -- which keeps shrinking (give me a PM if you want to hear my excuses) -- and, this is what I do for fun, so I naturally give it as much time as reasonable, at least.
- Then note that essentially all my posts are responses to your questions, accusations and comments otherwise. No one should be insulted by my lack of attention to their qac's -- I'm attending to as much as I have time for which to attend.
- And then, I've asked you to elect some sort of "gatekeeper" to tell me which qac to answer next, but you won't do it. If you did, you'd see that I would totally follow your lead (for half of my time at least).
- Does anyone here actually see my point (in a non-sarcastic way)?

--- Jabba

Sarcasm?

You have asked for questions before, just about everyone said the same thing; address the C14 assays. You refused to do so. You continued to refuse to do so. You are still refusing to do so.

So just who is being sarcastic by denying that you have been asked?

 

[Akhenaten]

And then, I've asked you to elect some sort of "gatekeeper" to tell me which qac to answer next, but you won't do it.

You dare to post kindergarten-grade nonsense like this and expect people to respond without sarcasm?

Really?

 

[abaddon]

- I only have so much time for this -- which keeps shrinking (give me a PM if you want to hear my excuses) -- and, this is what I do for fun, so I naturally give it as much time as reasonable, at least.

Srsly? You have no time to post responses, yet have the time to respond, and will futhermore respond by PM? To any and all? Something very wrong with that picture.

- Then note that essentially all my posts are responses to your questions, accusations and comments otherwise. No one should be insulted by my lack of attention to their qac's -- I'm attending to as much as I have time for which to attend.

Nope. Your responses consist of you claiming how you will respond, not actual responses.

- And then, I've asked you to elect some sort of "gatekeeper" to tell me which qac to answer next, but you won't do it. If you did, you'd see that I would totally follow your lead (for half of my time at least).

Nope. You have simply tried (and failed) to control the discussion in your favour.

- Does anyone here actually see my point (in a non-sarcastic way)?

--- Jabba

Nope.