Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

- That's not quite accurate...
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
- This acknowledgment requires some more thinking on my part. I'll be back.
--- Jabba

This post only makes sense if you assume, a priori, that the dating is wrong and are attempting to justify that position. That means that you came to the opinion prior to examining the data.

Care to guess what such an opinion is worth in science?

You're not attempting to come up with a scientific answer of any sort here. You're attempting to construct a post-hoc rationalization to protect an answer you believe on faith. Such a process is inherently dishonest (I'm not saying faith is; what you're doing is).

 

[John Jones]

This post only makes sense if you assume, a priori, that the dating is wrong and are attempting to justify that position. That means that you came to the opinion prior to examining the data.

Care to guess what such an opinion is worth in science?

You're not attempting to come up with a scientific answer of any sort here. You're attempting to construct a post-hoc rationalization to protect an answer you believe on faith. Such a process is inherently dishonest (I'm not saying faith is; what you're doing is).

Jabba, I hope you were paying attention. This has been said to you many times before by many people educated in the discipline of science.

I've been mostly lurking for months, and I have concluded that you have no intention of learning anything about the Shroud of Turin.

Deliberate obtusness springs to mind.

 

[abaddon]

This post only makes sense if you assume, a priori, that the dating is wrong and are attempting to justify that position. That means that you came to the opinion prior to examining the data.

Care to guess what such an opinion is worth in science?

You're not attempting to come up with a scientific answer of any sort here. You're attempting to construct a post-hoc rationalization to protect an answer you believe on faith. Such a process is inherently dishonest (I'm not saying faith is; what you're doing is).

While I agree with the sentiments, I still cannot see how the veracity or falsity of the ToS in any way impacts on ones faith as a christian, or the lack thereof, as an atheist.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Would Jabba become less of a believer if the ToS was conclusively demonstrated to be a fake? I doubt it.

So where is the beef? Why the need to validate a medieval fake? What does it matter?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Would Jabba become less of a believer if the ToS was conclusively demonstrated to be a fake? I doubt it.

He's been forced to become more of a believer since it's conclusively proven to be fake.

 

[pakeha]

Jabba's also started parroting the shroudie line that LANL was involved in "validating" their magic cloth, rather than a few believers who worked there.

Well-spotted!

- That's not quite accurate...
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
- This acknowledgment requires some more thinking on my part. I'll be back.
--- Jabba

What you need to rethink is your idea a patch of non-original fabric could ever be undetectable.
Then start figuring out how much material would be needed to skew the dating results.

And seriously, Jabba, do you think any sort of patching wouldn't have been revealed in the 2002 restoration of the TS?

 

[IanS]

While I agree with the sentiments, I still cannot see how the veracity or falsity of the ToS in any way impacts on ones faith as a christian, or ...

Perhaps the main reason the shroud has particular importance to many Christians, is because they think it's actually touched the body of Jesus. Everything else Christians know or believe about Jesus, comes to them only from the words in an ancient book (the bible).

When in the presence of the shroud itself, they think they are, in some quite direct way, really in the presence of Jesus.

As an amusing but rather revealing example (see Gove's book) - at their final meeting when C14 representatives and church officials agreed the date on which the C14 sample would be cut, the infamous Luigi Gonella actually added an item to the agenda asking for extra safeguards to keep scientific witnesses well back, because he said that once in the presence of the shroud the scientists might be overcome by the divinity of the Lord and all rush forward uncontrollably to touch the shroud (as if begging forgiveness for their unbelief)!

 

[IanS]

-
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
-

I want to know from you why people who could make an invisible repair to a tiny unimportant corner of the cloth, never bothered (even as late as 1868) to conceal in any way all the huge patches crudely sewn in place right next to the image itself.

 

[catsmate]

No, Jabba is not the king of the dance.

His arguments fulfil no other purpose than to suggest a slight variation on steps that were being performed here many years before his arrival and which will continue for even longer after his inevitable departure.

And it's far from tasteless.

Clearly you have yet to sample the delights of catsmate's delicious muffins.


Here's a humble cookie to tide you over.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26536http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954ff5de716b646.png​

Mmmmmm. Quintuple chocolate.

Slowvehicle,
- The word "patch" is sort of problematic for me. For the moment, I do think that there had been some "patching" done on the tested area. Could "patching" cause, or even contribute significantly, to such a shift in date? Doesn't seem likely to me, but so far I can't really dismiss the possibility.
--- Rich

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it just an example of your desperate need to believe?

 

[pakeha]

...As an amusing but rather revealing example (see Gove's book) - at their final meeting when C14 representatives and church officials agreed the date on which the C14 sample would be cut, the infamous Luigi Gonella actually added an item to the agenda asking for extra safeguards to keep scientific witnesses well back, because he said that once in the presence of the shroud the scientists might be overcome by the divinity of the Lord and all rush forward uncontrollably to touch the shroud (as if begging forgiveness for their unbelief)!

That actually rings true, IanS.
From my observations at the Holy Blood Basilica, true believers have highly emotional reactions when in the presence of the relic itself.
However, the relic there is sealed in a rock crystal tube.
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/belgium/bruges-basilica-of-holy-blood

And it stays sealed, because believers don't need evidence, they have faith.

IMO, what the Shroudies have is much more akin to a CT mindset.

 

[catsmate]

Oh, Rich...

What, in your mind, is the difference between a "patch" and "some patching"?

Whichever you want to say it must have been, why is the "patch" or the "patching", imperceptible to those who have, with permission, actually handled the cloth, looked at both sides of the cloth, examined the cloth in different light; while being perceptible to those who have not had access? Are you claiming conspiracy, or incompetence?

Whichever it is, consider how much "patching" and of what character of material, would be needed to distort the actual date of the medieval artifact by 11 centuries. You quickly get to the point that there would be more "patch", or "patching", than original cloth.

So, again, I ask for a direct, non-evasive answer, respectfully:
Are you claiming that there is undetectable "patching" in the cloth, to the extent that the ¹⁴C date is off by 1100 years? Answer me that, then we can talk about the nature of the "patching".

ETA: if a "patch" or "patching" does not "seem likely" to you, why is that not enough to dismiss it?

An interesting, if minor, point about the "patch" is that shroudies simultaneously claim that the area selected for removal of material was a patch and that the weave was so unique and distinctive that it invalidated the 'blinding' aspect of the radiocarbon dating process.

He's been wont to admit it, but he has been backing himself into a conspiracy corner. That is the only way any of his supposed objections have any traction at all.

Indeed, he's hinted at the lunatic Vatican conspiracy theory several times.

Maybe it's a special magic patch?

Like the image.

 

[pakeha]

An interesting, if minor, point about the "patch" is that shroudies simultaneously claim that the area selected for removal of material was a patch and that the weave was so unique and distinctive that it invalidated the 'blinding' aspect of the radiocarbon dating process. ...

Hmm.
Well spotted, catsmate1.
My own favourite is the ambiguous attitude toward Mme Mechthild Flury-Lemberg.
Here's an interview of hers
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_shroudchrist/interview.html

And here's the Marino Benford paper where the lady is asked about the possibility of patching on the sample area

"Many critics of this theory have scoffed at the idea of an invisible repair, as if it does not, or even could not, exist. This criticism extends even from the world-renowned textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was the overseer of the2002 restoration. In response to a communication from us, she stated that it was“technically impossible” (Flury-Lemberg, 2000). In a book about the restoration, she concluded that “reweaving in the literal sense does not exist” and confidently stated that any mend would be visible on the back side of the garment (Flury-Lemberg, 2003). She continued to pronounce publicly at the Third International Dallas Shroud Conference held 8-11 Se ptember 2005 that there is no reweave. (Her use of the term “reweave”seems to be a concession to the fact that it is a term that everyone understands and uses.)
In an email to the authors dated September 22, 2005, she further explains that, Your paper is based on ‘tapestry-reweaving’ = tapestry–mending. This was of course very often done in the past,-until today. My students did it under my guidance over many years on the Burgundian Tapestries of the Historical Museum in Berne. In the case of tapestries it is no problem to make ‘invisible mending.’(Invisible from the surface but easily recognisible [sic] from the back!) "

I'm really impressed Jabba has turned back to the invisible patching idea and I'm looking forward to seeing the reasons why he still thinks it's a viable explanation for the 'unacceptable' dating of the TS

 

[Dinwar]

While I agree with the sentiments, I still cannot see how the veracity or falsity of the ToS in any way impacts on ones faith as a christian, or the lack thereof, as an atheist.

That wasn't the faith I was talking about. Jabba believes in the shroud's authenticity on faith--he has to, as he's come to the conclusion before examining any evidence. His "research" is limited to finding ways to justify his conclusion, which is an article of faith.

I agree with you that the shroud's authenticity is irrelevant to Christianity and Catholicism. Fraudulant religious relics are extremely common.

 

[Jabba]

Rich:

Are you actually pretending to claim that there was, in fact, some sort of "patch" on the area of the medieval artifact that was tested; a patch that could not be detected in any way by people who have actually examined the cloth in person; but a patch that can be detected by people who have not actually examined the cloth?

I, for one, would very much appreciate it if you would step beyond innuendo and produce something substantive.

Do you think there is a "patch" on the tested area? Yes, or no?

Slowvehicle,

- There is only one thing that I know for sure -- I exist. Everything else is probabalistic.

- Following are my best guesses at the different specific issues re a patch and patching:
1. I'm 99% convinced that "invisible French re-weaving" (the Frenway method) is not responsible for the carbon date arrived at.
2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
3. At this point, my belief that a "patch" was involved, and responsible for the dating, is an amorphous toss-up -- I'm not convinced that those responsible for the sample selected, and those doing the recovery, did the testing necessary to preclude a patch.
4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

--- Jabba

 

[godless dave]

4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

Why?

 

[zooterkin]

2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.

Why? What shred of evidence do you have to support this?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- There is only one thing that I know for sure -- I exist. Everything else is probabalistic.

- Following are my best guesses at the different specific issues re a patch and patching:
1. I'm 99% convinced that "invisible French re-weaving" (the Frenway method) is not responsible for the carbon date arrived at.
2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
3. At this point, my belief that a "patch" was involved, and responsible for the dating, is an amorphous toss-up -- I'm not convinced that those responsible for the sample selected, and those doing the recovery, did the testing necessary to preclude a patch.
4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

--- Jabba

Rich:

2. What kind of "patching" could be done, that A) would not be perceptible to anyone who has actually handled the cloth, and, B) would account for the exact 1100-year age difference that your strong desire for authenticity needs?

3. Upon what facts do you base this opinion? It seems to me that, as ever, your opinion is driven by the fact that you want the medieval cloth to be the True Shroud^TM. It is sad to me that you refuse to see that you are shaking the dog at the stick...

4. Again, upon what facts do you base this opinion? What evidence can you point to that indicates that the corner is "not representative"?

Not to mention, even if it were demonstrated that the ¹⁴C dating was incorrect, how would you determine a "correct" date? Just keep testing until you found a lab that dated the cloth to Easter Weekend, 30-36 C.E.?

Even if you were to find a lab willing to make that claim, what about the artistic anomalies, the anatomical impossibilities (why won't you at least TRY the "Shroud Slouch^TN" demo?), the historical problems, the disagreement-with-scripture problems...all of which have been pointed out to you more than several times.

 

[Mashuna]

Slowvehicle,

- There is only one thing that I know for sure -- I exist. Everything else is probabalistic.

- Following are my best guesses at the different specific issues re a patch and patching:
1. I'm 99% convinced that "invisible French re-weaving" (the Frenway method) is not responsible for the carbon date arrived at.
2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
3. At this point, my belief that a "patch" was involved, and responsible for the dating, is an amorphous toss-up -- I'm not convinced that those responsible for the sample selected, and those doing the recovery, did the testing necessary to preclude a patch.
4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

--- Jabba

That's funny, I'm 99.99999% certain that your convictions are entirely unrelated to evidence, and are just fabricated to make you feel better.

My evidence in support of this figure is all through this thread.

 

[Akri]

2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.

Based on what?

3. At this point, my belief that a "patch" was involved, and responsible for the dating, is an amorphous toss-up -- I'm not convinced that those responsible for the sample selected, and those doing the recovery, did the testing necessary to preclude a patch.

There is no testing necessary. They just needed to look at the cloth.

4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

Based on what?

 

[Belz...]

Slowvehicle,

- There is only one thing that I know for sure -- I exist. Everything else is probabalistic.

I'm not sure you "know" this.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

- Various scientists have found some patching on threads allegedly taken from the sampling area. One scientist found some patching done on a sample of the cloth right next to the dating sample.
- I wasn’t going to post examples one at a time, but everyone wants “evidence,” so I’ll start off with quotes from the Roger’s 2005 paper in Thermochimica Acta. (http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)


1) Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology cut the 1973 sample [4]mentioned by Damon et al. [1]. Raes found that one part of his sample contained cotton, but thepart on the other side of a seam did not. He reported that the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern variety, Gossypium herbaceum, on the basis of the distance between reversals in the tape-shaped…
2) All threads from the Raes sample and the yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample show colored encrustations (or coatings) on their surfaces (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The coating material is not removed by nonpolar solvents, but it swells and dissolves in water. There was absolutely no coating with these characteristics on either the Holland cloth or the main part of the shroud. When Raes and radiocarbon-sample threads were teased open at both ends with a dissecting needle, the cores appeared to be colorless, suggesting the color and its vehicle were added by wiping a viscous liquid on the outside of the yarn. A marked difference between inside and outside fibers is characteristic of both the Raes and radiocarbon samples. The yellow–brown coating on the outside of the radiocarbon warp sample is so heavy that it looks black by transmitted light (Fig. 2).
3) Chemical tests on both the radiocarbon and Raes samples show their coatings to consist of a plant gum containing alizarin dye present in two forms. Some is dissolved in the gum, giving it a yellow color. A variable amount is complexed with hydrous aluminum oxide [AlO(OH)] to form red lakes Fig. 3). The lakes are gelatinous and usually very small. A good microscope is required to observe them, and the gum vehicle for the dye/mordant system on the Raes and radiocarbon samples makes it difficult to observe the lakes. The gum cannot be removed without damaging the lakes, but it can be made invisible by matching its index of refraction in a 1.515 index oil. With the gum invisible or swelled slightly in water, it is easy to see the lakes suspended in the gum and stuck to the fibers. Fig. 3 shows (upper left) colloidal red dye lakes suspended in the gum. To the right of that, some discrete lakes can be seen adhering to the surface of a cotton fiber. Several areas of yellow-dyed gum can be seen. Four cotton fibers and two flax fibers appear in the view. The radiocarbon sample contains both a gum/dye/mordant coating and cotton fibers. The main part of the shroud does not contain these materials…
4) The presence of alizarin dye and red lakes in the Raes and radiocarbon samples indicates that the color has been manipulated. Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material.

--- Jabba