Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akri]

- For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong. That hasn't helped any, so now, I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.

Once again, doing so would merely be a waste of your time. Even if we accept that the blood is real, and that all of your follow-up conclusions are correct, all the way up to "therefor it's extremely unlikely that the shroud is a forgery" we still must conclude that the shroud is a forgery. An unlikely event is more likely than an impossible one, and the C14 dating makes it impossible for the shroud to be authentic.

If you want people to believe that you're honest about wanting to address our criticisms, and aren't just trying to dodge issues, you will deal with this point. I don't think anyone will mind if you skip over arguing about each individual step in your blood argument and instead address the issue which is actually central to the whole argument.

- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me. At that point I could probably abbreviate (summarize) the particular trail (giving us a faster ability to follow the trail), and you guys could effectively point to all my loose ends, instead of just claiming that a particular claim has been oft rebutted, or refuted.

Nobody is going to change the format of the forum just for you. Either deal with it as it is, or tell us you can't handle it and bow out of the conversation.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,

- I am trying to do just what you say -- address the issues, and present my evidence.
- But under the circumstances -- the specifics of which I have indicated numerous times in the past -- doing so is extremely difficult for me. Starting with post #2530, at least, I've been trying to argue that the blood is real.

Demonstrating that the blood is real will not cast any doubt whatsoever on the results of the carbon dating. The best you can hope is to show that you've got some real, medieval blood on your hands, so to speak.

Your refusal to acknowledge this is pretty tragic.

<drivel>


- For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong.

The only thing that's wrong is your belief that the blood being real makes the slightest bit of difference.

That hasn't helped any, so now, I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.

It doesn't matter if it's real. It makes not one whit of difference.

- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me. At that point I could probably abbreviate (summarize) the particular trail (giving us a faster ability to follow the trail)

There is no trail. There's nothing to follow. All you've ever presented are these inane suggestions about what your case would look like if you had any evidence.

, and you guys could effectively point to all my loose ends, instead of just claiming that a particular claim has been oft rebutted, or refuted.

You don't even have loose ends, Jabba. You have absolutely nothing.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, forget the blood. It doesn't make any difference to the dating of the shroud.

Even if you could show evidence of human blood on the shroud, it wouldn't make one whit of difference to the dates, because the presence or absence of blood says nothing about either a 1st century or a mediaeval date.

The oly thing you need to focus on is the carbon dating results. Not by indirect assumptions about a time period which you've demonstrated you know very little, just the methodology and the results obtained from the three laboratories.

People here are not going to waste another 100+ pages on blind alleys, and the blood is the blindest of blind alleys. It tells you absolutely nothing about the dates.

Forget the blood. Address the carbon dating directly.

 

[pakeha]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.
- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.
- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”
- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

No, Jabba.
Just, no.
Now how about posting up the new evidence you've found?

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm going add to the chorus here: the blood proves nothing! Even if it were completely and totally shown that it was blood, was human blood, and even ended up on the shroud in a way that would be expected of a body bearing the wounds the image has, the cloth from which the shroud is made is still from the fourteenth century!

If I claim to have an painting from Leonardo da Vinci but it can be shown the wood on which it was painted came from a tree cut down in 1867, then nothing else about my claim matters. The wood post-dates da Vinci, so the painting could not have possibly come from his hand.

 

[Giordano]

1. Akri, post #4611:
Why not just tell us what the entire syllogism is first?

2. Jabba, #4627:
1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.
7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.
8. They do not all agree with tradition.
9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.
10. He would also have to be rich.
11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.
12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.
- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

3. Re premise #1 above:
a. #4628, Belz:
Unproven.
b. 4633, Resume:
Evidence?
c. 4650, Agatha:
You have not shown convincing evidence of this.
d. 4653, Akhenaten:
For this to be in any way significant you need to demonstrate that it's blood from the first century.
How do you plan to do that? Carbon dating?
e. 4655, Catsmate:
Unproven assertion. There is no proof of any blood on the shroud (as has been pointed out to you many times) and all the "evidence" cited by shroudies falls apart on inspection.
Fail.
f. 4668, Dinwar:
Proof is required to support this nonsense. You've failed to do so thus far.
g. 4674, Aepervious:
is not demonstrated but even if it was :

4. #4638, Jabba:
- I'm not sure of the right terms of logic to use, but the premises I gave are just separate conclusions that I have reached. And my objective now is to support each one -- one at a time.
- Akri asked for the whole syllogism, so I sort of gave him (or her) the "Table of Contents" for my hopefully forthcoming "book." Now, I'll try to write the first chapter.

5. Re 3.a., b. & c., above:
a. I was beginning in my efforts to bring forth whatever evidence I had, and could muster, when I felt the need to help my friend and finish up with his TWA 800 conspiracy theory.
b. I’m back, and I will now try to take up where I left off a month and a half ago (though, I still need to go back, converse with my friend, and finish up my summary over there).
c. Again (as in #4 above), my “premises” were actually my “interim conclusions” that I will now support as best I can – one at a time.
d. So, my first focus will be my claim that the “blood stains” on the Shroud were real blood and your call for evidence.
e. I may be wasting time with this preface (as I'm sure that you guys believe), but it is in an effort to figure out how best to deal with so many opponents, questions and comments in a timely manner when I haven’t kept good track of the relevant material I’ve been reading (not really “studying” until recently) over the last 40(?) years.
f. But, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Jabba,

Very good, your post makes it very clear that you have no new evidence for your blood claims. Notably your prior claims have all been rebutted. In many cases your evidence was based on publications that didn't even say what you thought they said.

Now you might argue, "Well, I don't agree that my claims were disproven, so that is just your opinion." Well, why post here unless you want to convince us? Which you haven't done so far.

So I suggest not recycling the old "evidence"- it would be useless. Just get to why the 14C data is wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- I am trying to do just what you say -- address the issues, and present my evidence.
- But under the circumstances -- the specifics of which I have indicated numerous times in the past -- doing so is extremely difficult for me. Starting with post #2530, at least, I've been trying to argue that the blood is real. Since that time, I have made numerous claims, and presented some of what I have considered evidence. You guys have made numerous responses to almost all (each) of my claims, and I've responded to a few of those.
- My claim is that if those "trails" were handy, "staked out, I'd have an easy way of remembering what's gone before and what I need to address next. We could all easily see where things stand with each of my claims. We could all easily see the numerous rebuttals, that you (plural) often refer to, and that I have left hanging.

- For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong. That hasn't helped any, so now, I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.
- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me. At that point I could probably abbreviate (summarize) the particular trail (giving us a faster ability to follow the trail), and you guys could effectively point to all my loose ends, instead of just claiming that a particular claim has been oft rebutted, or refuted.

--- Jabba

Rich:

I hope you do not take this snarkastically, no matter what you tell your audience on the shroudie sites.

You appear to be ignoring, simply pretending not to see, all of the posters who have made and supported the point that blood on the cloth indicates that there is...blood on the cloth. Since the cloth has been accurately, independently dated to the 14th century, any evidence that you might,. at some time, present that there might, in fact, be blood on the cloth is evidence that the blood on the cloth is medieval (at the very earliest).

My partner is an artist; my partner's genre is photorealism. My partner has painted with human blood (acquired from volunteers). My partner dismisses the arguments you raise abut a mad genius artist by pointing out deficiencies in the representation itself--the amateurish way the "blood" is represented in the "hair"; the lack of any alteration of the "body" image at the "wounds"; the unrealistic byzantine-style non-anatomical representation; the flat image that was not, could not, be produced by three-dimensional wrapping...but, as my partner points out, all of those fascinating points are points about an artifact that dates, at the earliest, from the late 13th to mid-14th centuries.

As far as a "flowchart" of the argument--are you not keeping some sort of journal, some sort of notes? Google Drive is free, and lets you create spreadsheets and documents that you can access from any computer. Seriously--if nothing else, that might help you not present arguments that have been refuted, at least without providing new, or additional refutation.

 

[davefoc]

Well, according to the C14 dating it's blood from no earlier than the 14th century so, err . . .

Not exactly, the cloth is from the 14th century. Who knows when the "blood" * is from? Maybe it is blood saved from the body of Jesus and a 14th century artist discovered it and painted it on a 14th century cloth. I will agree, though, that does seem unlikely.

* This is not to say the "blood" is blood. It is, of course, very unlikely that it is blood for reasons that have been stated numerous times throughout this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, according to the C14 dating it's blood from no earlier than the 14th century so, err . . .

Not exactly, the cloth is from the 14th century. Who knows when the "blood" * is from? Maybe it is blood saved from the body of Jesus and a 14th century artist discovered it and painted it on a 14th century cloth. I will agree, though, that does seem unlikely.

* This is not to say the "blood" is blood. It is, of course, very unlikely that it is blood for reasons that have been stated numerous times throughout this thread.

I was actually going to suggests this possibilty, but then I thought "Nah, that's so outrageously unlikely that even the most fact-challenged Shroudie on Earth wouldn't entertain it."

We'll see.

 

[Akri]

I was actually going to suggests this possibilty, but then I thought "Nah, that's so outrageously unlikely that even the most fact-challenged Shroudie on Earth wouldn't entertain it."

We'll see.

Wait, I got it! OK, so the shroud is a 14th century cloth, used as a prop by a traveling conman who would use the cloth to disguise himself as a poor old woman. This conman was first in a long line of fraudsters, and the cloth became a family heirloom, along with many other items used in the family trickery. Eventually in the year 3214 the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of that original conman managed to steal a time machine from Wells, Inc., and took the cloth back in time to the 1st century where he painted it with blood from a hobo. He then left it where he knew archaeologists would find, and then went back to 3214 where he plans to be the ArchPope of Shroud Church and charge people $500 admission to look at the shroud.

 

[Garrette]

Wait, I got it! OK, so the shroud is a 14th century cloth, used as a prop by a traveling conman who would use the cloth to disguise himself as a poor old woman. This conman was first in a long line of fraudsters, and the cloth became a family heirloom, along with many other items used in the family trickery. Eventually in the year 3214 the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of that original conman managed to steal a time machine from Wells, Inc., and took the cloth back in time to the 1st century where he painted it with blood from a hobo. He then left it where he knew archaeologists would find, and then went back to 3214 where he plans to be the ArchPope of Shroud Church and charge people $500 admission to look at the shroud.

Hardly plausible. He would have to charge 500,000 yuan.

 

[IanS]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said. I think that OUR DEBATE, itself, could also profit (big time) from such a layout.
- As I’m sure you all know, some websites allow the reader to sort posts by what’s being responded to, rather than by chronological order – and, in fact (I think), accomplish the above.
- I think that would be very useful in our situation. Perhaps, such a format could even "abbreviate" the responses, and REALLY be useful for taking in the bigger picture “at a glance.”
- I assume that doing that here would be impossible – or, at least, next to impossible.

- Any thoughts? (If you think it’s impossible, or that it could never do any good anyway, please try to say that without being sarcastic – I already know how poorly you generally think about my thinkings and efforts.)
--- Jabba

OK, without being sarcastic - a flowchart is completely unnecessary and would just be a pointless diversion. All that you need to do is to produce any genuine scientific paper which has ever questioned the C14 dating.


The only such paper that I know of (and the only one you have been able to find) is the Rogers paper. But that paper has multiple problems, not least that it’s in an extremely obscure journal of which Rogers himself just happened to be one of the founding editors!

Nor does Rogers actually produce any evidence against the C14 in that paper anyway. Instead all he does is say that he received some fibres which someone else (Gonella) told him had come from the C14 samples, and where Rogers looking through his own home microscope thought he could see some colour that suggested to him that the threads might have been from a modern repair or some other non-original part of the shroud.

But his suggestion of a modern repair was actually pre-empted and totally rejected by all three radiocarbon labs at the time of testing in 1989. Not to mention all the other subsequent rejections of any such repair (eg from Flury Lemberg’s month-long personal examination of the Shroud … whereas Rogers had never seen the Shroud or the C14 sample or the cut area at all, not even for a few seconds!).

The only valid way for you (or anyone) to overturn the C14 dates, is to show that a genuinely independent and properly qualified scientist has published evidence in a mainstream science research journal suggesting the C14 dates are badly in error (not merely "perhaps slightly out"), and that the date should be around 1st century AD instead.

But the problem you have encountered for over 100 pages in this thread, is that in nearly 25 years since the C14 tests, there has never been even one genuine independent scientist who has ever published even one paper disagreeing in any way at all with the C14 dates.

 

[pakeha]

And worse yet, IanS.
One of those labs used to date the shroud was used to ¹⁴C date some relics fairly recently
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618151228.htm
"New dating evidence supports claims that bones found under a church floor in Bulgaria may be of John the Baptist, who is described in the Bible as a leading prophet and relative of Jesus Christ. A team from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University dated a knucklebone from the right hand to the 1st century AD, a date which fits with the widely held view of when he would have lived. The researchers say they were surprised when they discovered the very early age of the remains adding, however, that dating evidence alone cannot prove the bones to be of John the Baptist."

No protests about the reliability of the lab.
Odd.

 

[zooterkin]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,”

Like this?

 

[catsmate]

<snippage>

Rubbish. Stop wasting time attempting to control the debate and actually address the vast array of evidence in favour of the shroud being a medieval fake.
I listed the points you need to address previously, here they are again:

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)


8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue

Radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. accelerator mass spectroscopy
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples

- I am trying to do just what you say -- address the issues, and present my evidence.

Based on your past behaviour this simply isn't true.

<snip> Starting with post #2530, at least, I've been trying to argue that the blood is real. Since that time, I have made numerous claims, and presented some of what I have considered evidence.

And your "evidence" has been shown to be worthless nonsense. Try harder.

<snip>For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong.

You've engaged in puerile attempts at perverting logic to support your opinions.

I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.

Evidence required.

- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me. At that point I could probably abbreviate (summarize) the particular trail (giving us a faster ability to follow the trail), and you guys could effectively point to all my loose ends, instead of just claiming that a particular claim has been oft rebutted, or refuted.

I for one have no intention of allowing you to control the debate as part of your attempt to distort reality to support your opinions.
I will continue to demand you support your claims with evidence and expose your lies and distortions.

And worse yet, IanS.
One of those labs used to date the shroud was used to ¹⁴C date some relics fairly recently
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618151228.htm
"New dating evidence supports claims that bones found under a church floor in Bulgaria may be of John the Baptist, who is described in the Bible as a leading prophet and relative of Jesus Christ. A team from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University dated a knucklebone from the right hand to the 1st century AD, a date which fits with the widely held view of when he would have lived. The researchers say they were surprised when they discovered the very early age of the remains adding, however, that dating evidence alone cannot prove the bones to be of John the Baptist."

No protests about the reliability of the lab.
Odd.

You expect consistency from the god botherers?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Like this?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=7420[/qimg]

Too complex. Can you simplify it just a bit?

 

[pakeha]

Point taken, catsmate1.
Still, I just want to watch our Shroudie try to avoid outright saying the 'faulty' dating is due a conspiracy by the scientific world to discredit christianity.
In conjunction with the Vatican, of course.

 

[Dinwar]

- I am trying to do just what you say -- address the issues, and present my evidence.

No, you're not. A post on the process of debate cannot be spun into an attempt to address the issues we raised.

- But under the circumstances -- the specifics of which I have indicated numerous times in the past -- doing so is extremely difficult for me.

To quote Justin Timperlake, cry me a river. This is what scientists deal with EVERY BLOODY DAY. You want to play at science. Guess what? We've shown you the profound and unearned respect of taking you seriously. Now you want to whine about it.

Since that time, I have made numerous claims, and presented some of what I have considered evidence. You guys have made numerous responses to almost all (each) of my claims, and I've responded to a few of those.

This is how science is done. Your responses have been responded to, and have been found wanting. You're back at 0 evidence for, some huge number of datums against.

- My claim is that if those "trails" were handy, "staked out, I'd have an easy way of remembering what's gone before and what I need to address next.

Posts don't disappear once you've read them. They stick around. Re-read the parts you're confused on. That's what the rest of us do.

- For one thing, I have tried (numerous times, I think) to show my interim conclusions, in my extended syllogism, that lead to my belief that the blood stains" being real blood is actually crucial to a conclusion that the carbon dating is wrong. That hasn't helped any, so now, I'm focusing on that first interim conclusion -- i.e., the blood is real.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that we've shown this entire line of reasoning to be flawed. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT--meaning that even if we grant every one of your unsupported assertions--you still can't prove that the Shroud isn't Medieval. You want to belabor the obvious, it's your choice--but that's what you're doing.

- To do that, I need to stipulate where we are in this particular sub-issue -- and, having the kind of structure I'm suggesting, would do that for me.

After nearly 120 pages of argument, without you being able to present even a single point in your favor, I'm no longer willing to give you any concessions. I, for one, don't CARE if a particular style of argument is easier for you. It doesn't matter in any way--the "blood" on the shroud could be real, human blood and it in no way disproves the C14 dating because humans with blood have been around since the 1st century. Use whatever argument style you want, that datum will continue to disprove this entire line of argument.

 

[Belz...]

f. But, I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Liar. You haven't supported any of your claims to date, and I see no reason to believe you now.

 

[Belz...]

- I think that what we need -- in order to allow someone trying to follow our debate to actually, effectively evaluate it -- is a permanent “flow chart,” or perhaps “algorithm,” of what we’ve said.

No, what you need to do is to start addressing other people's points. Start with one, and work your way to the end. Hell, start with mine if you want. You have your work cut out for you.