Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

Yes, a great post, wollery.
I first knew of the TS via a traveling exhibit that was most convincing to me.
The pollen and all that, you know. It never occurred to me that the church would allow such an exhibit to tour about if there was cold, sober evidence the cloth was dated to the 14th century.
In dating paid for by the church.

I didn't know about the many organisations that operate under the church' umbrella, including the Shroud of Turin University.
http://shrouduniversity.com/
But thanks to this thread, I see there is definitely a prosperous cottage industry around this relic.
Semi-official church policy to placate the crazy?
Who knows.

Has anyone else seen the Pope Emeritus' last legacy?
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17234
"
From Our Store: Liturgical Year 2012-2013, Vol. 3: Lent (eBook)

Before his resignation took effect on February 28, Pope Benedict XVI authorized a television broadcast that will display the Shroud of Turin.

On Holy Saturday, March 31, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia will lead a liturgical ceremony that will include a public display of the Shroud. The ceremony will be telecast and made available worldwide. "

The show must go on!

 

[catsmate]

Before I started reading this thread I'd always been of the belief that the Shroud of Turin was a bona fide 1st century relic, but had no direct link to Jesus other than tradition.

What I have learned by participating in this thread has completely changed my view. I knew nothing about the anatomical inaccuracy, the blood running down hair that fell onto shoulders despite the body being prone, the similarity of the image to 14th century artistic styles, the early descriptions of the shroud as a fake and having bright colouring, or even the 14C dating.

To be honest it all came as somewhat of a shock. However, as a scientist the thing that stood out for me was the 14C dating. I couldn't figure out why they would use three independent labs? Why on earth would you need that sort of redundancy built in to what amounts to a simple everyday test? But after a few weeks of reading Jabba's posts it slowly dawned on me - some people simply aren't swayed by hard evidence whilst some people need much more evidence than most to change a deeply held belief. If they had used only one lab then a fair proportion of the people who believed in the shroud would have dismissed the result as probably an error. Use two labs and you'll get 90% of them to change their minds. Use 3 labs and it's going to be more like 99.9%.

However, if you were to use 10 labs then there'd still be that one in a million who just wouldn't believe. It's a problem of diminishing returns, up to a limit the more labs you use the more people will accept the result, but eventually you get to a point where no matter how many labs are involved, and no matter which part of the cloth is sampled there will remain a small hardcore of believers who simply won't accept it. You could carve up the whole cloth, farm it out to 100 labs, find they all agree to within 10 years and there would still be people who would speculate about invisible patches, conspiracies involving the Vatican and regeneration energies altering the chemistry of the cloth.

In short, with some people you just can't win. So they went for the 99.9% of people who are open to hard data and said, "Sod the rest, they ain't worth the effort!"

The sad thing is that I am totally open to being convinced by the evidence. As I said to someone just the other week who was trying to sell me on a self-awareness course that was actually a course on how to alter your reality - "If you can give me one tangible piece of evidence to believe that there's anything at all to this then I'm happy to look at it in more detail." They couldn't give me anything but subjective feelings and bovine excrement. My favourite quote from the whole conversation was, "I don't think with my head, I think with my heart." Very true, very obvious and very sad.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with this thread.

To Jabba the suggestion of a few chemicals that could possibly be constituents of blood is proof positive that Jesus bled onto the cloth. Never mind that all of those chemicals could come from other sources, including paints, or that there are billions of other sources for blood, including pigs chickens and leeches.

To Jabba the fact that some people can repair a cloth in a way that's very difficult to find is proof positive that the sample that was sent to the labs was an invisible repair using later cloth. Never mind that there's no way to actually make a repair undetectable to an expert and several textile experts examined the cloth closely, or that the only way to do it well involves using threads from the original cloth, rendering the repaired section indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth in terms of 14C dating.

There's simply no way to convince the Jabbas of this world. They don't want to be convinced. They don't even want to convince anyone else. All they are doing is attempting to shore up their own fragile belief.

There's a reason that Jabba is so slow to get any research done, and it has nothing to do with age or lack of resources, or any of the other myriad excuses he uses. His inability to do research is because deep down he knows what he will find, and he wants to delay it long enough that he never has to actually face the truth.

Excellent post.
A couple of points.
1. The reason for using only three labs for the radiocarbon tests was principally down to the amount of material that would have been needed; the technique used by the three labs selected (accelerator mass spectrometry) was still fairly new and not commonly available. Jabba (and other shroudies) harp on about the original seven laboratories (though in fact only six were ever approached) as though this change was of enormous significance; in reality it was done to avoid having to remove more material from the cloth, as the proportional counter method would have required a far larger sample.

2. Conspiracy theories about the radiocarbon dating started almost immediately after the testing, despite the procedures used. Some people just want/need to believe. The official announcement was made in September 1988 and Bonnet-Eymard published his first rant on the subject, blaming Michael Tite, in November.
Less lunatic shroudies mutter about invisible patches, mysterious coatings, fire damage, biological contamination et cetra, despite these being shown time and again to be nonsense.

3. As I've said before, while the radiocarbon dating effectively ends any reasonable speculation about the date of origin of the cloth. However when added to the other evidence (historical, physiological, artistic, textile, documentary, cultural and analytic) the cumulative effect leaves such speculation firmly in the realms of lunacy.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, a great post, wollery.
I first knew of the TS via a traveling exhibit that was most convincing to me.
The pollen and all that, you know. It never occurred to me that the church would allow such an exhibit to tour about if there was cold, sober evidence the cloth was dated to the 14th century.
In dating paid for by the church.

I didn't know about the many organisations that operate under the church' umbrella, including the Shroud of Turin University.
http://shrouduniversity.com/
But thanks to this thread, I see there is definitely a prosperous cottage industry around this relic.
Semi-official church policy to placate the crazy?
Who knows.

Has anyone else seen the Pope Emeritus' last legacy?
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17234
"
From Our Store: Liturgical Year 2012-2013, Vol. 3: Lent (eBook)

Before his resignation took effect on February 28, Pope Benedict XVI authorized a television broadcast that will display the Shroud of Turin.

On Holy Saturday, March 31, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia will lead a liturgical ceremony that will include a public display of the Shroud. The ceremony will be telecast and made available worldwide. "

The show must go on!

Making money from the gullible believers (are there any other kind?) with relics has a long an ignoble history.

 

[pakeha]

Yes. In fact, you could say it's what connects all organised religions and cults across time and space.

 

[Dinwar]

1. The reason for using only three labs for the radiocarbon tests was principally down to the amount of material that would have been needed; the technique used by the three labs selected (accelerator mass spectrometry) was still fairly new and not commonly available.

Just to emphasize how well-constructed this study is compared to other radiocarbon studies, I've never sent a C14 sample to more than one lab. I've never HEARD of sending a sample to more than one lab except in cases where the lab has committed some sort of error and the sample needs re-taken, or multiple analyses were required and one lab simply couldn't handle them all. Most quality analysis/quality control sampling (QA/QC for short) is conducted in-house, in the form of field duplicates (ie, duplicate samples given different names) and various lab samples (depends on the lab, the analytical techniques, and the sampling techniques).

The use fo three separate labs alone already places this among the most well-constrained C14 sampling done. It's far more than most archaeological, paleontological, or geological sampling ever recieves.

The next aspect of our dialectic that can properly be placed upon our agree-to-disagree scale is my claim that my inability to “keep up”

Jabba, I've explained this to you before: the reason you seem to have all kinds of questions thrown at you is because you're thrashing around like an eel dumpted into fomaldahyde (always did feel sorry for that poor thing, but the EPA wanted a biological grab sample). If you'd stick to one single issue, and actually acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms, it would be relatively easy to address. Take, for example, the blood argument. You jumped from C14 to blood for no good reason. But hey, we heard you out. We offered criticisms--which is what scientists do. You completely ignored them, preferring to jump to another topic entirely--which we then offered criticisms of. Now you're jumping to ANOTHER topic--which we're offering cricisims of. If you'd stick to one, you wouldn't be in this mess.

- For some reason, you guys just can’t seem to appreciate these, my excuses:

If I state that humans arived in North America 20,000 years ago, a statement that's not overly unreasonable in my profession, I would be required to offer evidence. NO excuse would be acceptable. I could respond to some criticisms with "I haven't studied that; let me get back to you", but if I did that too often, or with fundamental concepts, my idea would be rejected as not wrong, but unworthy of consideration.

What I'm trying to tell you is that we're using standard scientific arguments and protocols here. You're asking for an exception. Sepkoski or Valentine or Hawking might be given one, due to the quality of their past work, but you haven't come CLOSE to earning our indulgence yet.

- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate.

This isn't how science works. You've provided nothing but excuses and evasions. All of the evidence is on the side of your opposition. There is no equivalency between our positions, and it'd be dishonest of me to grant one. You're wrong. It's as simple as that. Until you give us some data I am morally obligated to disagree with you.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Just dropped in for the leggings and woolery's post. Looks like some other interesting reading to be had.

 

[pakeha]

Yes.
Amazing what tight leather can do, isn't it?

...The use fo three separate labs alone already places this among the most well-constrained C14 sampling done. It's far more than most archaeological, paleontological, or geological sampling ever recieves. ...

And even still the pro-authenticity proponents find it dodgy that SEVEN labs weren't used.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Problems?

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

 

[Akri]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

That paper starts off by citing the Heller/Adler paper for the blood claim--a paper which I seem to recall being thoroughly debunked in this thread. That does not bode well for this paper being a good source of information.

 

[Belz...]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

Translation: "It's talking about carbon dating in a negative light, so here. I don't need to do actual work or understand the objections."

 

[sleepy_lioness]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

Here's a hint. Why not hold off posting until you've got the quotes ready? It'd make your posts a whole lot less frustrating and annoying to read. To make things even better, you could hold off posting until you've prepared a neat summary of what you find most convincing about the paper and why we should consider reading it, perhaps with some judiciously chosen quotes to back up your argument. Constantly telling us what you're just on the verge of being about to do is really wearing to the reader.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

The invisible patch again???

You've got to be kidding.

Post #1301

19 May 2012

- From my post #1223:
- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuela..._of_the_Shroud
- I can't believe that you guys can say that I haven't presented reasonable doubt if you actually read the passage I cited...
- There must be SOMEbody out there (participating in this thread, other than myself) who would perceive some reasonable doubt if they actually read that passage...
--- Jabba

Post #1223

16 May 2012

Ward,
- I'm the last person to judge what hasn't been discussed to death here already, but personally, I liked the following.
- Clearly, this stuff has been discussed already to some extent, but I would argue that it hasn't been discussed nearly enough. There are a lot of credible reasons for doubting the validity of the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

- Mostly, at this point, I just want to show that the carbon dating results on the Shroud simply do not deserve your current level of loyalty. I contend that there are significant reasons to question the validity of those results (certainly more than “reasonable doubt”) – some of the reasons being “direct,” and some being “indirect.” By direct, I’m referring to the numerous “chinks” in the overall process itself (in this case). By “indirect,” I’m referring to other relevant scientific and historical evidence (supporting an earlier date).

- For one thing, in researching the Shroud over the years (not withstanding my memory problem), I’ve been constantly surprised by the level of emotionality that I’ve perceived from the involved scientists – on both sides… In other words, we need to take these “scientific” opinions with a grain of salt.

- And, as long as you agree that there is at least reasonable doubt in the “direct” evidence re the carbon dating (reasonable doubt as to its validity), the indirect evidence deserves its day in court…

- The following — obviously written by an Italian Shroudie and translated by Google – gives a relatively recent, and pretty good, summary of the problems with the overall process itself.

- Overall, it’s a lot to read, but if you start at “Was the analysed sample representative of the whole cloth?” on page 22, and read through the Conclusion, it should go pretty fast. The last page or two is filled up with a bibliography, and each page in between is halfway devoted to references.

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

And but two of the many, many responses to your posting of this nonsense:

^
Jabba, please, please don't be so dishonest.
You know very well I read that.
We've gone over it on this thread.

As for those quotes of yours, they are all assertions, nothing more.
Do you really not see that?

The wierdest part of that paper was the tenor of it- it reminded me of AiG.

edited to add.
Ah I've found where that paper came from.
Rather sly of you not to say, Jabba!

http://www.hazteoir.org/noticia/44237-valencia-28-30-abril-i-congreso-internacional-sabana-santa
http://sindone2012.es/programa-eventos-congreso-sindone-2012.php

Hardly an unbiased, peer-reviewed source.
But you did the same before, didn't you- when you quoted sources without saying they were obituaries.

You're really not very good at this whole research thing, are you, Jabba?

 

[Dinwar]

The invisible patch again???

You've got to be kidding.

I thought it sounded familiar.

 

[pakeha]

...http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

My little web-book shows that link as 'Emanuela....of the Shroud'
Am I simply an evil, evil person or does does anyone else automatically think of the cinematographic possibilities when they see that phrase?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already[...]

You did. The criticisms that people made of it then are still valid.

 

[pakeha]

- I thought that I had cited the following paper already, but I couldn’t find it in the thread. It seems (to me, of course) to make for a good summary of the problems with the carbon dating of the Shroud, and of the reasons why we should be at least somewhat suspicious of the results. I’ll come back with some quotes.
--- Jabba

http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud

Hi, Jabba.
Were you really unable to find the post where you brought up this paper? Seriously?
Here it is
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8287645&postcount=1223

 

[Resume]

I thought it sounded familiar.

"Will he go 'round in circles . . ?"

Yes, yes he will.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[pakeha]

...You're really not very good at this whole research thing, are you, Jabba?

Pharaoh is generous to remind me the paper was read at the Valencia ShroudCom last Spring.

Jabba, is this really what you have to offer the thread?

 

[Dinwar]

That left pauldron would drive me insane. Looks almost like a modified jousting kit.