• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
- 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
It doesn't fly, Jabba. I understand that the time you can devote to this is limited; it is limited for all of us. I also understand that the time available shrinks or varies and is not constant. It happens to all of us.

But there are things that have been repeatedly pointed out that you repeatedly fail to address:

1. You waste your available time on telling us what you will do when you could in fact spend your time on actually doing it.

2. You waste your time and ours by telling us you will tell us why you have no time to tell us anything if we will simply ask via pm. There is no conceivable circumstance in which this is anything but a complete waste of your limited time as well as a complete and obvious avoidance of the issues.

3. You neither need nor get to demand a gatekeeper. Despite the numerous posters here, the objections and questions are actually fairly limited.

4. You, and you alone, are the one who goes off on tangents and fails to focus your efforts on the core topics. You raised the Heller and Adler paper. People here read it (something you still have failed to do). Those people gave pointed and concise comments. Your response was to ignore those comments and repost summarized drivel that had already been addressed.

There's more, Jabba, but the cause of your problems is you. Nobody else. You should actually be grateful because in all your 20 years of research none of your fellow Shroudies has ever gotten you to look at the primary papers. It is only the skeptics here who have done that.

Doesn't that tell you something, Jabba? It is the skeptics and not the believers who are willing to look at the source papers and at the primary evidence? Everything, every last bit of evidence that you have posted and which you got from believer sites is secondary summaries which have been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in their characterizations of the actual papers.

Dump your self-pity; it is not deserved.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
You sound like a freshman, Jabba. "I spent HOURS studying for that test!!!" So what? Honestly, who cares and why should they? You used your time badly. You didn't even check your references. Your research methods are so sloppy that you can't find the sources you HAVE bothered to locate. You've ignored huge swaths of research, and quite tellingly all of that has been stuff that disagrees with you. If I spent ten lifetimes studying something I couldn't do anything useful that way.

- 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.
As I told you months ago, you could easily side-step this issue by actually doing the research properly and presenting coherent arguments. Most of the questions you've received fall into a limited number of categories, and each category could be dealt with as a whole. Instead, you prefer to get bogged down in minutia as a transparent attempt at deliberate obfuscation.

- And then, I've asked you to elect some sort of "gatekeeper" to tell me which qac to answer next,
Yes, we know you've attempted to dictate how this conversation will go. Our answer was "No. Play by the rules of scientific discourse or go away." You don't get special treatment merely because you're incompetent.

- Does anyone here actually see my point (in a non-sarcastic way)?
Of course. You have no idea what a scientific debate is and were entirely unprepared for one, yet entered into an archaeological discussion and demanded to be treated as an expert. Then you started complaining because we took you seriously and actually bothered to think about what you wrote.

Sorry, Jabba, but I have absolutely no sympathy for you. After a year you have to know what you got yourself into. It's time to either accept that this is a scientific discussion and abide by the rules of such discussions, or admit that you're unwilling to do so and abandon the pretense that you can actually evaluate the scientific claims on either side (someone else may be able to, but if you can't play by the rules YOU certainly can't).
 
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

I haven't noticed what you've posted at your site; I've not been there for some time.
Do you mean you've never kept note of evidence at all?

...- 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)?

No. The request for a gatekeeper is neither more nor less than an effort to control the discussion. It will never happen.
 
Last edited:
I think we have here the classic problem with vagueness in the sindonist language. They send us to Applied Optics paper, because it is peer reviewed and concluding. Yes, it is peer reviewed, but not concluding. In this article Adler and Heller send us to a new one by Morris et allia. They said once again that it is concluding. Not at all. “In ‘blood’ stain regions the measurements show significantly higher concentrations of iron. However, the data do not allow a unique identification of the stain's origin”. (Morris, R. A; Schwalbe, L. A. ; London, J. R. : “X-ray fluorescence investigation of the Shroud of Turin”. X-Ray Spectrometry, Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 40–47, April 1980. Subscription is required).

David Ford is actually the main source for sindonism literature about blood. (Ford, David: “The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry”. 2000. www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf ). This one is not peer reviewed. Obviously, because Ford is not an expert. He was a history student in 2000. And this paper is a novelette or hagiographic pamphlet pro Adler and Heller and against McCrone. Something as Adversus haereses. The two main sources of Ford’s article are Heller, J.H. y A.D. Adler: “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin. ” (Canadian Society of Forensic Journal, (1981)) and Heller’s book Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983). Houghton Mifflin Hartcour is a generalist publishing. His great best seller in the last Century was Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Their first aim is student books.

To check this bibliography is difficult. The 1981 paper seems more serious but there is only a paper version. Not easy to find. If you read with care the Ford’s pdf you must distinguish between original ideas from Adler&Heller and “clever” deductions made by Ford. It is neither easy because novelistic author’s style.

In essence, I think there are two main points in the cause of blood in the shroud: High level of iron in the stains and hydrazine test. And there are two main points against the blood: bright colour and absence of some classic components of blood as potassium. All this with respect to chemical and microscopical evidence and take for granted the accuracy of the studies. I am not able to check this last point.

Other archaeological and forensic evidences against blood can be argued. But this is another subject.

Addenda: I am working on blood topic for my blog La sombra en el sudario. Chemistry and Physics are not my strong points. If someone wants to comment about or correct something I have written above this will be good for me. Thanks.
 
- 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

Well since I only have 24 hours in a day I'm going to respond to this post in my next post when I will again probably not have enough time to properly respond to the post I will be responding to unless you can appoint a "gatekeeper" to keep me on track of which posts I am not responding to at the time.
 
Well since I only have 24 hours in a day I'm going to respond to this post in my next post when I will again probably not have enough time to properly respond to the post I will be responding to unless you can appoint a "gatekeeper" to keep me on track of which posts I am not responding to at the time.


I am more than happy to accept the rôle and responsibility implied by acceptance of the appointment, "tsig's gatekeeper" and in that capacity I am, without fear or favour, pleased to announce the scores to date:

tsig and various assembled critical thinkers:

1 billion points​

Jabba:
nil​

Jeux de cartes
 
I am more than happy to accept the rôle and responsibility implied by acceptance of the appointment, "tsig's gatekeeper" and in that capacity I am, without fear or favour, pleased to announce the scores to date:

tsig and various assembled critical thinkers:

1 billion points​

Jabba:
nil​

Jeux de cartes
Seems like a bad result. I predict the Black Knight's Gambit.
 
And after the spanking?
The oral sex! It is Christmas, after all.

I have given up expecting Jabba to post substantive replies to this thread, so we may as well post Monty Python quotes.
 
The oral sex! It is Christmas, after all.

I have given up expecting Jabba to post substantive replies to this thread, so we may as well post Monty Python quotes.

I don't know if it's time for that yet. The arguments for shroud authenticity are just resting. Probably pining for the fjords middle east.
 
The Cheese Shop skit would fit right in!

Mousebender Now then, some evidence please, my good man.

Wensleydale Certainly sir. What would you like?

Mousebender A bit of provenance.

Wensleydale Sorry, can't account for 70% of its apparent life span.

Mousebender Some Carbon-Fourteen then?

Wensleydale Sorry; tells the same story as the provenance.

Mousebender Scientific papers?

Wensleydale Ah. They've been on order, sir, for two weeks. I was expecting them this morning.

Mousebender How about blood stain evidence?

Wensleydale I'm afraid we never have that at the end of the week, sir. We get it fresh on Monday.

(etc)
 
The Cheese Shop skit would fit right in!

Mousebender Now then, some evidence please, my good man.

Wensleydale Certainly sir. What would you like?

Mousebender A bit of provenance.

Wensleydale Sorry, can't account for 70% of its apparent life span.

Mousebender Some Carbon-Fourteen then?

Wensleydale Sorry; tells the same story as the provenance.

Mousebender Scientific papers?

Wensleydale Ah. They've been on order, sir, for two weeks. I was expecting them this morning.

Mousebender How about blood stain evidence?

Wensleydale I'm afraid we never have that at the end of the week, sir. We get it fresh on Monday.

(etc)

Mousebender: Figures.Predictable, really I suppose. It was an act of purest optimism to have posed any questions in the first place. Tell me:

Wensleydale: Yessir?

Mousebender: (deliberately) Have you in fact got any evidence at all.

Wensleydale: Yes, sir.

Mousebender: Really?

(pause)

Wensleydale: No. Not really, sir.
 
Mousebender Any historical evidence prior to the 14th century perhaps?

Wensleydale Ah! We have historical evidence, yessir.

Mousebender (suprised) You do! Excellent.

Wensleydale Yessir. It's, ah... it's a bit dodgy...

Mousebender Oh, I like it dodgy.

Wensleydale Well... it's very dodgy, actually, sir.

Mousebender No matter. Fetch hither les preuves d'avant le 14e siècle! Mmmwah!

Wensleydale I... think it's a bit dodgier than you'll like it, sir.

Mousebender I don't care how flipping dodgy it is. Hand it over with all speed.

Wensleydale Oooooooooohhh........! (pause)

Mousebender What now?

Wensleydale The cat's eaten it.

Mousebender (pause) Has he.

Wensleydale She, sir.
 
^
Brilliant, all of you!

I think we have here the classic problem with vagueness in the sindonist language. They send us to Applied Optics paper, because it is peer reviewed and concluding. Yes, it is peer reviewed, but not concluding. In this article Adler and Heller send us to a new one by Morris et allia. They said once again that it is concluding. Not at all. “In ‘blood’ stain regions the measurements show significantly higher concentrations of iron. However, the data do not allow a unique identification of the stain's origin”. (Morris, R. A; Schwalbe, L. A. ; London, J. R. : “X-ray fluorescence investigation of the Shroud of Turin”. X-Ray Spectrometry, Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 40–47, April 1980. Subscription is required).

David Ford is actually the main source for sindonism literature about blood. (Ford, David: “The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry”. 2000. www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf ). This one is not peer reviewed. Obviously, because Ford is not an expert. He was a history student in 2000. And this paper is a novelette or hagiographic pamphlet pro Adler and Heller and against McCrone. Something as Adversus haereses. The two main sources of Ford’s article are Heller, J.H. y A.D. Adler: “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin. ” (Canadian Society of Forensic Journal, (1981)) and Heller’s book Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983). Houghton Mifflin Hartcour is a generalist publishing. His great best seller in the last Century was Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Their first aim is student books.

To check this bibliography is difficult. The 1981 paper seems more serious but there is only a paper version. Not easy to find. If you read with care the Ford’s pdf you must distinguish between original ideas from Adler&Heller and “clever” deductions made by Ford. It is neither easy because novelistic author’s style.

In essence, I think there are two main points in the cause of blood in the shroud: High level of iron in the stains and hydrazine test. And there are two main points against the blood: bright colour and absence of some classic components of blood as potassium. All this with respect to chemical and microscopical evidence and take for granted the accuracy of the studies. I am not able to check this last point.

Other archaeological and forensic evidences against blood can be argued. But this is another subject.

Addenda: I am working on blood topic for my blog La sombra en el sudario. Chemistry and Physics are not my strong points. If someone wants to comment about or correct something I have written above this will be good for me. Thanks.

Great work, DM.
Thoughtful, painstaking and well written.
May the little old man in a red suit bring you prezzies to tide you over til the arrival of the Reyes Magos

O Pharaoh, please let us know when we may start placing bets on the nature of Jabba's probable reply to DM's post.
O Pharaoh
 
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?
Acleron,

- My main reason for thinking that the carbon dating is flawed is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence -- evidence against the results of the dating rather than the process of the dating.
- I do think that there is plenty of "direct" reason for questioning the validity of the overall process in this case, but for now, these seem to be sort of secondary, and basically allow for invalidity more than they require invalidity.
- So anyway, I think that I have a bunch of premises which, if true, lead to the conclusion that the carbon dating was wrong. While, the premise that the stains are composed of real blood does not, itself, require that the dating be invalid, it does in my opinion make for a good first step in that direction.

- What I'm saying is that my focus on the blood issue is totally appropriate to addressing the carbon dating issue. In other words, I am trying to do as requested by you guys -- it's just that I've been slow, and have recently been even slower.

--- Jabba
 
Acleron,

- My main reason for thinking that the carbon dating is flawed is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence -- evidence against the results of the dating rather than the process of the dating.
Present it then. You claim to have it. Let's see it.

- I do think that there is plenty of "direct" reason for questioning the validity of the overall process in this case, but for now, these seem to be sort of secondary, and basically allow for invalidity more than they require invalidity.
You have failed to present those reasons, you simply seek to have your assumption that your reasons are valid, and should be accepted.
- So anyway, I think that I have a bunch of premises which, if true, lead to the conclusion that the carbon dating was wrong. While, the premise that the stains are composed of real blood does not, itself, require that the dating be invalid, it does in my opinion make for a good first step in that direction.
Veiled assumption that blood stains exist. They don't

- What I'm saying is that my focus on the blood issue is totally appropriate to addressing the carbon dating issue. In other words, I am trying to do as requested by you guys -- it's just that I've been slow, and have recently been even slower.
Wrong. You have simply been trying to slide your assumptions under the door.

Have you anything to reply to the actual carbon dating or not?
 
Acleron,

- My main reason for thinking that the carbon dating is flawed is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence -- evidence against the results of the dating rather than the process of the dating.


This is mainly why you fail.

Apart from anything else, what you're calling "indirect" evidence is nothing more than what you hope sounds more credible than "stuff I believe no matter what the evidence says".



- I do think that there is plenty of "direct" reason for questioning the validity of the overall process in this case, but for now, these seem to be sort of secondary, and basically allow for invalidity more than they require invalidity.


This is another major reason why you fail.

You're pretending that the the single most important thing you need to do - demonstrate that the C14 results are flawed in and of themselves - is less important than convincing everyone of the truth of your unevidenced fantasies about bluuurd and whatnot.



- So anyway, I think that I have a bunch of premises which, if true, lead to the conclusion that the carbon dating was wrong. While, the premise that the stains are composed of real blood does not, itself, require that the dating be invalid, it does in my opinion make for a good first step in that direction.


Balderdash.

Unless you can demonstrate that the C14 results are wrong then the very best you can ever hope to do is suggest that a 14th Century artefact has bluuurd on it.

And that's nothing like a step in the direction of providing evidence for your dead Jeebus theory.



- What I'm saying is that my focus on the blood issue is totally appropriate to addressing the carbon dating issue.


Of course you're saying that, and it's why you're destined to repeat your failures forever.



In other words, I am trying to do as requested by you guys -- it's just that I've been slow, and have recently been even slower.

--- Jabba


You aren't doing what's being requested of you. You've got a half-baked idea that bluuurd on the shroud = resurrected Jesus and because that's what you want to believe you are impervious to actual evidence.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- My main reason for thinking that the carbon dating is flawed is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence -- evidence against the results of the dating rather than the process of the dating.
it's also non-existent. You've had over a hundred pages to provide any valid data to support your nonsense, and have failed utterly. The greatest support for your theories has been given (and soundly dismantled) by the opposition. You've lost this argument by defaulting.

- I do think that there is plenty of "direct" reason for questioning the validity of the overall process in this case, but for now, these seem to be sort of secondary, and basically allow for invalidity more than they require invalidity.
It has been demonstrated that you know nothing of C14 sampling procedures, that your demands are unreasonable, and that nothing anyone did would ever be sufficient for you to accept it. It is dishonest (there's no other word for it) to say that the most well-document and well-controled C14 sample ever taken wasn't rigorous enough. And those are your BEST arguments against the process. Most of the rest of your arguments are made-up nonsense.

- So anyway, I think that I have a bunch of premises which, if true, lead to the conclusion that the carbon dating was wrong.
There are two problems with this. First, they don't. Until you can prove the C14 dating wrong at best you can only end up arguing that the C14 dating is a mystery (weird things do sometimes happen). Second, you've been unable to put forth any such true premises. You've tried one, and it was soundly defeated.

While, the premise that the stains are composed of real blood does not, itself, require that the dating be invalid, it does in my opinion make for a good first step in that direction.
Hardly, for reasons that pretty much everyone else at this point has outlined and which you've steadfastly ignored (as an aside, you really should question why your side requires you to ignore so much, Jabba). And it's telling that you consider this a premise rather than a conclusion. You ASSUME that the stains are blood. You didn't even read your own references (after TWENTY YEARS OF RESEARCH!!). You WANT this to be true--but you have no data to support such a conclusion, even if it's the right one, so you've dishonestly attempted to put it into a position where data are unnecessary. Sorry, Jabba, but those of us familiar with science have no patience for that sort of trickery.

- What I'm saying is that my focus on the blood issue is totally appropriate to addressing the carbon dating issue. In other words, I am trying to do as requested by you guys -- it's just that I've been slow, and have recently been even slower.
We've shown your "premise" to be false. You have two options: abandon your premise and find a new one that might work better, or admit that you're wrong. Continuing to ignore the facts and criticisms presented here merely shows that you are unwilling to engage in honest discourse.

I'd appologize for harping on your honesty, but we've given you well over a hundred pages and you continue to play the same games. You're not an honest person, Jabba. And this directly relates to the thread: you want us to trust that you have some long, complex train of thought that you're trying to express (though you flat-out refuse to do so). Your track record, however, suggests that any statement you make is more likely to be false than true. So I'm going to go ahead and just say that I don't believe you actually have any idea how blood stains can possibly disprove C14 dating, and that you're simply throwing arguments at us at random, in hopes that we finally capitulate under the onslaught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom