Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

The Blood

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

 

[wollery]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

Yes, most reputable scientists take it for granted that it is blatantly self-evident that the stains aren't blood and have better things to do with their time than write refutations of something that they feel is stark staringly bonkers and has little if any impact on their lives or research.

 

[Akhenaten]

Teh Bluuurd

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

Yes, just as you've missed the list of astrophysicists who have claimed that black holes aren't made out of licorice, the list of biologists who have claimed that blue whales aren't a type of shellfish and the list of mathematicians who have claimed that the square root of -1 isn't a banana.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, just as you've missed the list of astrophysicists who have claimed that black holes aren't made out of licorice, the list of biologists who have claimed that blue whales aren't a type of shellfish and the list of mathematicians who have claimed that the square root of -1 isn't a banana.

Mighty one: I would not usurp the place of He Who Provides Muffins, but may I offer you a slice of home-made fruitcake?



Well said, sir! Well said!

 

[pgwenthold]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

I won't speak for anyone else, but I am a PhD scientist who is a faculty member in a top 25 chemistry department, and I can say from what I have seen presented in this thread that it's very clear that there is no evidence of any blood on the shroud. The supposed evidence for blood is also consistent with non-blood explanations, so do not require there to be blood.

Of course, it COULD be blood, but even if it is, it doesn't matter since blood on the shroud is not inconsistent with it being a medievil forgery so that might be why no one really has bothered to worry about it.

Speaking of things that haven't been done, btw, has anyone ever been able to reproduce the image by wrapping a cloth around a body? Considering that one of the most obvious objections to the authenticify of the shroud is that the image doesn't look anything like what you would get if you weap a person in cloth, that might be something you'd want to verify.

Of course, some shroud believers HAVE tried to address it, but in the end, the answer comes down to "it's a miracle" which is a dealbreaker scientifically.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Yes, just as you've missed the list of astrophysicists who have claimed that black holes aren't made out of licorice, the list of biologists who have claimed that blue whales aren't a type of shellfish and the list of mathematicians who have claimed that the square root of -1 isn't a banana.

Not to mention, even if it were blood, so what? People can use blood to paint if they want.

 

[catsmate]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

You haven't even read the posts here have you? Pathetic.

Not to mention, even if it were blood, so what? People can use blood to paint if they want.

Indeed.

 

[pakeha]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

Yes.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 italian commission on the shroud --to claim that the stains on the shroud are not blood, has been walter mccrone. Am i missing something?
--- jabba

otio

 

[David Mo]

1. From my recollection, the only scientist -- since the 1973 Italian Commission on the Shroud --to claim that the stains on the Shroud are not blood, has been Walter McCrone. Am I missing something?
--- Jabba

This is a confusing question, Jabba.

¿Only scientist? Baden, Broch, Fischer, Garlaschelli and others agreed: the “blood stains” are not blood.

¿Only scientist who could directly exam some threads of the Shroud? False. Historian Noemi Gabrielli, Pontifical Commission 1973, said it was paint.

¿Only scientist non sindonist who could directly exam some threads of the Shroud with a complex set of physical and chemical methods? Yes.

And this is my question:
¿How many scientists non sindonists thinks the “blood stains” are blood? None. Heller, Adler and Baima Bollone are the only scientist who claims the “blood” of the Shroud is blood. All they are members of the sindonist movement, a passionate movement devout to prove the authenticity of the Shroud. Only Adler and Heller had published in scientific reviews and your methods were never confirmed. This is the real situation. Not this one you intended suggest with your confusing question.

And a question for you… ¿How many specialist scientists had exam the Shorud and had found true blood? The answer is easy.

Sometimes to formulate correct questions is more important than finding the answers.

 

[pakeha]

^
Bookmarked, David.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

I won't speak for anyone else, but I am a PhD scientist who is a faculty member in a top 25 chemistry department, and I can say from what I have seen presented in this thread that it's very clear that there is no evidence of any blood on the shroud. The supposed evidence for blood is also consistent with non-blood explanations, so do not require there to be blood...

Pgwenthold,
- I'll gradually present all the scientific evidence for blood that I can find, but first, there seems to be very little evidence that the stains are not blood. Apparently, 1) neither the Commission nor McCrone were able to solubiize the stains, and 2) in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized.
- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood.
--- Jabba

 

[Kid Eager]

Pgwenthold,
- I'll gradually present all the scientific evidence for blood that I can find, but first, there seems to be very little evidence that the stains are not blood. Apparently, 1) neither the Commission nor McCrone were able to solubiize the stains, and 2) in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized.
- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood.
--- Jabba

None of which matters to the results of the carbon 14 tests.

All you're saying is that there's no evidence of it being blood, therefore it's probably blood? What a novel interpretation....

 

[Akhenaten]

Pgwenthold,
- I'll gradually present all the scientific evidence for blood that I can find, but first, there seems to be very little evidence that the stains are not blood. Apparently, 1) neither the Commission nor McCrone were able to solubiize the stains, and 2) in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized.
- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood.
--- Jabba

It doesn't occur to you on any level that you have this whole evidence thing completely backwards, does it?

 

[Akhenaten]

None of which matters to the results of the carbon 14 tests.

All you're saying is that there's no evidence of it being blood, therefore it's probably blood? What a novel interpretation....

I've applied the same logic and established that since there's no evidence that the core of Pluto isn't made out of delicious nougat then it must therefore be so.

 

[pakeha]

^
Mmmmm.
Nougat.

...- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood. ...

Here's a post you may not have read, Jabba:

This is a confusing question, Jabba.

¿Only scientist? Baden, Broch, Fischer, Garlaschelli and others agreed: the “blood stains” are not blood.

¿Only scientist who could directly exam some threads of the Shroud? False. Historian Noemi Gabrielli, Pontifical Commission 1973, said it was paint.

¿Only scientist non sindonist who could directly exam some threads of the Shroud with a complex set of physical and chemical methods? Yes.

And this is my question:
¿How many scientists non sindonists thinks the “blood stains” are blood? None. Heller, Adler and Baima Bollone are the only scientist who claims the “blood” of the Shroud is blood. All they are members of the sindonist movement, a passionate movement devout to prove the authenticity of the Shroud. Only Adler and Heller had published in scientific reviews and your methods were never confirmed. This is the real situation. Not this one you intended suggest with your confusing question.

And a question for you… ¿How many specialist scientists had exam the Shorud and had found true blood? The answer is easy.

Sometimes to formulate correct questions is more important than finding the answers.

And again, at the end of the day, we're still waiting for the evidence you claim you have, Jabba.

Nougat.
Mmmmm.

 

[catsmate]

Pgwenthold,
- I'll gradually present all the scientific evidence for blood that I can find, but first, there seems to be very little evidence that the stains are not blood. Apparently, 1) neither the Commission nor McCrone were able to solubiize the stains, and 2) in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized.
- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood.
--- Jabba

Rubbish as usual. You and your fellow shroudies are the ones who claim there is blood on the cloth, therefore it's up to you to prove this. You have utterly failed to show there is any evidence of blood. Even most shroud believers don't accept that there is blood residue present.

Now you introduce another pathetic red herring with your claim that "in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized". Utter rubbish. Where have you gotten this claim from? A fellow shroudie? Or some dodgy pro-shroud forum?

If you'd bothered to actually read the papers by Dr. McCrone that have been linked to you'd know why this claim is rubbish.

 

[Agatha]

I haven't found any scientists claiming that the marks on the shroud are not strawberry jam. By Jabba's logic, we should be taking seriously any claim that there is strawberry jam in the shroud.

 

[Jabba]

This is a confusing question, Jabba.

¿Only scientist? Baden, Broch, Fischer, Garlaschelli and others agreed: the “blood stains” are not blood...

David,
- One at a time.
- Obviously, I do miss things. Can you give me a quote and citation?
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pgwenthold,
- I'll gradually present all the scientific evidence for blood that I can find, but first, there seems to be very little evidence that the stains are not blood. Apparently, 1) neither the Commission nor McCrone were able to solubiize the stains, and 2) in order to identify blood it needs to be solubilized.
- And again, I can't find any other scientists claiming that the stains are not blood.
--- Jabba

Rich:

Did you READ any of the link I sent you?