Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pgwenthold]

Rich:

Did you READ any of the link I sent you?

I'm still really fascinated by the fact that Jabba claims to have been doing Shroud research for 20 years and has a website dedicated to it. Yet, he is still extremely ignorant about it, as evidenced by the fact that he has been schooled big time by the folks in this thread.

What in the blazes has he been doing for those 20 years? Reading every book in the library and saying, "Nope, that does not contain evidence it is not blood"?

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

- Here’s some stuff from
THE THIRD DALLAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: DALLAS, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2005

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
- Discussion of blood evidence begins on page 6, and again on page 10. References begin on page 15.

--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Rich:

Did you READ any of the link I sent you?

Based on past behaviour no he hasn't.

 

[Garrette]

- Here’s some stuff from
THE THIRD DALLAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: DALLAS, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2005

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
- Discussion of blood evidence begins on page 6, and again on page 10. References begin on page 15.

--- Jabba

You don't even read your own sources.

Besides, yet again, being a secondary source and not a primary one, and besides, yet again, being a source unpublished in the relevant journals, this does not say what you think it says. It presumes the stains are blood and moves from there; it does not present or discuss evidence that proves there is blood.

Are you doing this intentionally, Jabba?

 

[Blue Mountain]

With regards to blood on the shroud, Jabba, do you know what the null hypothesis is?

 

[Akri]

Hmm, a 114 page thread that's been going around in circles for a year and that is obviously an exercise in futility? This is a GREAT place for an opening post (And amazingly, I HAVE read most of the thread. I blame Dinwar for that. Not because it's his fault, but because it's fun to blame him for things.)

- Here’s some stuff from
THE THIRD DALLAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: DALLAS, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2005

[snipped URL]
- Discussion of blood evidence begins on page 6, and again on page 10. References begin on page 15.

--- Jabba

Was Jesus the only creature in history capable of bleeding? Because I don't see how blood could be relevant otherwise.

 

[Agatha]

Welcome to the madhouse forum, Akri. You make a good point, but I predict Jabba will either ignore it or handwave it away.

 

[Garrette]

Hmm, a 114 page thread that's been going around in circles for a year and that is obviously an exercise in futility? This is a GREAT place for an opening post (And amazingly, I HAVE read most of the thread. I blame Dinwar for that. Not because it's his fault, but because it's fun to blame him for things.)


Was Jesus the only creature in history capable of bleeding? Because I don't see how blood could be relevant otherwise.

I suspect Jabba's point is that Jesus was the only person in history who could bleed in that specific way whatever that specific way is. Personally, I think that specific way means in such a way that the blood is indistinguishable from pigment, remains even after the body is washed, flows even after the bleeder is dead, demonstrates flagellation marks that extend beyond the body itself, and reside on an anatomically incorrect figure that happens to match the artistic style of 14 centuries later. I must say that I agree; if anyone could bleed in such a manner, it would be the mythical Jesus.

 

[Garrette]

Despite my previous post, and despite there being truth in continuing to point out that proof of blood on the shroud does absolutely nothing in regard to proving it authentic, I tend to wish we would stop using that line of logic, at least at times. It gives Jabba an excuse to avoid discussing his even more basic errors, in this case the fact that his latest link to secondary sources doesn't even claim to provide the evidence that Jabba suggested it does.

Now, instead of admitting that his link is worthless and does not say what he claimed, he will (I betcha) go back on his old chestnut: I recognize blood doesn't prove anything by itself, but demonstrating that it is blood is a link in a long chain that shows why we must doubt the C14 dating.

The fact that that stance is wrong, too, won't matter to Jabba. He'll stick with it.

Any takers?

 

[Kid Eager]

So, to summarise:

- Carbon dating of the shroud remains valid, putting it in the Middle Ages, and
- No blood has been found on the shroud

The shroud is a fake.

 

[Giordano]

So, to summarise:

- Carbon dating of the shroud remains valid, putting it in the Middle Ages, and
- No blood has been found on the shroud

The shroud is a fake.

Yep! And I would add that it was identified by the Church itself as a forgery soon after it appeared. But some people are so insecure in their beliefs that they need to prop them up with fairy tale stories.

 

[Akhenaten]

A Minor Quibble

Despite my previous post, and despite there being truth in continuing to point out that proof of blood on the shroud does absolutely nothing in regard to proving it authentic, I tend to wish we would stop using that line of logic, at least at times. It gives Jabba an excuse to avoid discussing his even more basic errors, in this case the fact that his latest link to secondary sources doesn't even claim to provide the evidence that Jabba suggested it does.

Now, instead of admitting that his link is worthless and does not say what he claimed, he will (I betcha) go back on his old chestnut: I recognize blood doesn't prove anything by itself, but demonstrating that it is blood is a link in a long chain that shows why we must doubt the C14 dating.

The fact that that stance is wrong, too, won't matter to Jabba. He'll stick with it.

Any takers?

Garette,
- your basic prediction is valid.
- although you would have scored double points for mentioning the weird way in which the response will be formatted.
- I can't find any scientists who disagree with your prediction.
- what do you guys think?

--- Jackin' Aten


PS

- I'll be back.

 

[David Mo]

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

Michael Baden:
“The subject was presented by “a leading forensic pathologist (Michael Baden, deputy chief medical examiner of New York for Suffolk County) [who] says(…) «Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body»." (Cfr: Marvin M. Mueller, reply to William Meacham “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”, http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm ).

John Fischer (expert forensic):
“In summary, with regard to the "blood," one must consider all the evidence: the suspicious and "picturelike" flows, the red color, the negative results of tests by forensic experts, the positive identification of artists' pigments (most notably vermilion and rose madder, which cannot In- rationalized as constituents of blood), and the failure of STURP scientists (their assertions notwithstanding) to prove the presence of blood. On the basis of this evidence these suspect "blood" stains have had their day in court: From a forensic standpoint the so-called "blood" is "non-reportablc" as blood, and there is clear evidence that some—possibly all—of the "blood" is due to painting.” (In Nickell, Joe: Inquest of the Shroud of Turin, New York, Prometheus Books, 1998, p. 132).

Henri Broch (Université Sophie-Antipolis, Nice):
“Factual presence of pigments is crucial, because it cannot come in anyway from blood or other bodily substance, and it is demonstrated unequivocally”. (Los fenómenos paranormales, Barcelona, Crítica, 1987, p. 63. Translation from Spanish is my guilt).

Luigi Garlaschelli (Università di Pavia).
“The artistical appearance of the hair and blood trails…” an so on. (“Il Mistero del Telo Sindonico”, La Chimica e l’ Industria, 80, 629 , 1998. http://www.luigigarlaschelli.it/Altrepubblicazioni/SindonChInd.htm . Consulted on line 01.01.2013, 10:05. I will add more translation of this paper if you wish.)

You’re welcome.

 

[pakeha]

^
Also bookmarked.

... I blame Dinwar for that. Not because it's his fault, but because it's fun to blame him for things.) ...

Yes.
Welcome to the forum.
This thread going nowhere?
Not at all.
We've established that the old canard of the 'invisible patch' is total nonsense.
Since the major objection to the C14 dating is that the samples were taken from an 'invisible patch' and therefore not representative of the cloth itself, that's actually more important than would appear to the outside world.

We've also established the pivotal Adler and whatsit's paper on the existence of blood on the shroud doesn't actually conclude there's blood on the shroud.

I use 'we' in the loosest, post-NYE sense possible.

 

[pakeha]

- Here’s some stuff from
THE THIRD DALLAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: DALLAS, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2005

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf
- Discussion of blood evidence begins on page 6, and again on page 10. References begin on page 15.

--- Jabba

From page 6:
"2.1d) BLOOD AND BODY FLUIDS
A58) Body fluids other blood or serum than did not percolate into the cloth (Rogers 2003).
A59) The blood or serum have migrated by capillary imbibitions from the "warp side" to the "weft
side" of the TS and, depending on their abundance and consistency, they filled the mesh apertures
(Fanti 2004).
A60) There is a class of particles on the TS ranging in color from red to orange that test as blood
derived residues. They test positively for the presence of protein, hemin, bilirubin, and albumin;
give positive hemochromagen and cyanmethemoglobin responses; after chemical generation
display the characteristic fluorescence of porphyrins (Adler 1999).
THE THIRD DALLAS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: DALLAS, TEXAS, SEPTEMBER 8-11, 2005
7
A61) The blood on the TS is not denatured. Therefore both the image-formation mechanism and
the 1532 fire did not involve processes that would denature the blood (Rogers 2004).
A62) The blood from the large flow on the back darkened (scorched) at an adjoining scorch (Rogers
1978).
A63) The red flecks McCrone (1980, 2000) claimed were hematite had an organic matrix (Heller 1983,
Rogers 2004).
A64) Microscopic observation of blood flecks of sample 3EB showed specular reflection: the
blood went onto the surface as a liquid (Rogers 1978).
A65) Blood spots are much more visible on the TS by transmitted light than by reflected light;
this implies that the blood saturated the cloth and it is not a superficial image as the body imager is
(Rogers 1978).
A66) Many blood traces visible on the frontal image are also visible on the back image in the
same position (Fanti 2003).
A67) Blood stains are well marked on the reverse side , although they are fainter than on the front
side of TS (Fanti 2003, Whanger 2004).
A68) Some human blood stains appear on and outside of the body image (left elbow) (Heller 1980,
1981, Baima Bollone 1981, 1982, Jackson, 1987, Carreira, 1998).
A69) In correspondence to the knees on the dorsal image, there are scourge marks in
correspondence to lower luminance levels of the body image (Fanti 2003).
A70) The blood on the TS does not fluoresce in ultraviolet illumination (no porphyria and no
fluorescent pigments) (Rogers 1978).
A71) The blood on the TS can be removed with a proteolytic enzyme (Adler 1999).
A72) No smears are evident in the blood traces (Bucklin 1982, Ricci 1989, Antonacci 2000).
A73) No potassium signals could be found in any of the blood area data (Morris 1980).
A74) In UV fluorescence the scourge marks appear with dumbbell shapes (Bucklin 1982, Ricci 1989).
A75) In UV fluorescence the scourges are resolved into fine scratches: three, and in some cases
four, parallel scratches can be distinguished (Bucklin 1982, Ricci 1989).
A76) The blood stain corresponding to the right side of the chest 6th ribs shows separation of
blood from a clearer liquid material (Bucklin 1982).
A77) The DNA found in blood spots is badly degraded. (Rogers 2005).
A78) No broken fibers were found under the blood clots (N. Svensson 2005)."

From page 10:
"2.2d) BLOOD AND BODY FLUIDS
B46) There is a first type of blood stain that corresponds to the blood exudated from clotted
wounds and transferred to the cloth by being in contact with a wounded human body such as
scourging and crown of thorns wounds or wrists wounds (Adler 1999).
B47) There is a second type of blood stain that correspond s to the blood that directly flowed on the
TS such as feet wounds or side wound with blood separation in a dense and a serous portion
(Brillante 2002, Schneider 2004).
B48) The UV photographs of single blood stains show a distinct serum clot retraction ring (Adler
1999).
B49) The chemical and physical parameters of the blood stains are different than mineral
compositions proposed by artists (Adler 1999).
B50) The bloodstains observable on the back surface have been described as "imbibed flows "
throughout the cloth (Ghiberti 2002).
B51) Blood traces on the back surface of the TS are smaller in size when compared with the
corresponding traces on the frontal side, showing that blood was transposed onto the cloth
touching the frontal side of the TS (Fanti 2003).
B52) The maintenance of the red bright color of the TS blood with time was observed, but the
explanation of why the color is so red is not definitive (Brillante 2002).
B53) There are blood traces not consistent with scalp hair traces soaked with blood in
correspondence to the image of the hair on the front side (Lavoie 1983, Fanti 1999).
B54) The wrist wound position can be referred to as the hand nail used for the crucifixion (Fanti and
Marinelli 2003).
B55) The blood clots were transposed to the linen fabric during fibrinolysis (Brillante 1983; Lavoie 1983).
The process of fibrinolysis could cause clots to liquefy sufficiently for the blood to transfer to the
cloth as a serous- laden liquid rather than a moist jelly- like substance (Craig 2004).
B56) Some blood stains are comparable to transfers that would be expected if the arms were posed
in non horizontal position (Lavoie 1983, 2003, Fanti 2005, Schwortz 2005)."


I have the impression all this is basically speculation based on Adler and Heller's paper.

Also, there's disagreement between Adler & Heller and Rogers on the subject of the presence of porphyrins:

A70) The blood on the TS does not fluoresce in ultraviolet illumination (no porphyria and no
fluorescent pigments) (Rogers 1978).

A60) There is a class of particles on the TS ranging in color from red to orange that test as blood
derived residues. They test positively for the presence of protein, hemin, bilirubin, and albumin;
give positive hemochromagen and cyanmethemoglobin responses; after chemical generation
display the characteristic fluorescence of porphyrins (Adler 1999).

 

[Dinwar]

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

Yet more evidence that you aren't willing to do the research. I'm sorry, but when someone claims to have spent two decades looking into a topic I expect them to actually show the initiative to look into references provided in discussions on that topic. That's how science works--the discussion includes references, which participants are expected to actually read. This isn't an onerous burden we're placing on you--this is stuff that scientists do all the time. My boss and I have sent emails that consist of "I think you're wrong. Here's why." and a list of references.

I blame Dinwar for that. Not because it's his fault, but because it's fun to blame him for things.

You're not related to me, are you? Every female relative, from the youngest to the oldest, has said that about me.

 

[Garrette]

Yet more evidence that you aren't willing to do the research. I'm sorry, but when someone claims to have spent two decades looking into a topic I expect them to actually show the initiative to look into references provided in discussions on that topic. That's how science works--the discussion includes references, which participants are expected to actually read. This isn't an onerous burden we're placing on you--this is stuff that scientists do all the time. My boss and I have sent emails that consist of "I think you're wrong. Here's why." and a list of references.

Not only has Jabba not read his references (with one exception in this thread when he finally read one paper after much prodding and summarizing by others), he demands other people read the references he himself hasn't read, then posts papers which are supposedly summaries of primary sources but hasn't read those, either. Then to top it off, when others do read the papers that he himself hasn't read, he refuses to acknowledge their points.

Then he says (in the Bayes Theorem thread) that the skeptics "have an axe to grind."

I'm going to go out on a limb and extend my earlier post about types of believers, the one in which I classified Jabba as a believer who simply trusted the sources he did not realize he had reason to doubt. I think it's more than that. I think Jabba not only has trusted his sources, but he has become his locally trusted source. I can picture Grandpa Jabba talking to his children and grandchildren along with all manner of friends of all ages. None of them have even read the misleading summaries of the primary research that Jabba has read. Instead, they know that Grandpa Jabba can say with authority that "the scientists Heller and Adler have reviewed the research and never been refuted by non-believing scientists, plus Rogers did actual experiments; I can discuss specifics if you like, but suffice it to say that the Shroud is genuine."

Then he basks in the praise they heap on him, especially when one family member refers another to him for the "expert opinion."

We're not just challenging his worldview; we're threatening to take away his status.

 

[Jabba]

Michael Baden:
“The subject was presented by “a leading forensic pathologist (Michael Baden, deputy chief medical examiner of New York for Suffolk County) [who] says(…) «Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body»." (Cfr: Marvin M. Mueller, reply to William Meacham “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”, http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm )...

David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast medical literature or to have been in contact with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's, which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena. In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage, Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither medieval nor artistic in origin.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast medical literature or to have been in contact with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's, which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena. In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage, Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither medieval nor artistic in origin.

--- Jabba

I will forego dissecting the silliness by stating instead:

All of the tangential bickering if you will merely provide the original papers, i.e., the "vast medical research" that lays all this to rest and then engate in actual discussion of it. Why do you continually post summaries of summaries and call it an argument?

 

[Akhenaten]

David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.

<snip>


It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body.


<snip>


--- Jabba

That entire ill-considered and poorly presented copypasta was a sad joke, but the excerpt above is nothing more than a flat-out lie and does your argument far more harm than I would, at this late stage, have believed possible.