Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate1 said:
Indeed, he's hinted at the lunatic Vatican conspiracy theory several times.
Click to expand...

I think it is well beyond the "hinting" stage at the moment.

In particular, the whole secret "invisible patch" thing is completely based on a conspiracy. The Vatican did an invisible patch on that section of the cloth, but won't admit it.

Or they don't know about it? So someone patched the shroud, and didn't tell the vatican about it?

That's a conspiracy, and it's not even subtle.

The whole "invisible patch" line completely begs the question of why it was done (which has been asked many times) and why it is secret.
 
Jabba said:
- 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
Click to expand...


What would be the effect on these percentages if the C14 testing had produced a date of ≈ 30CE?

Don't forget to show your working.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...


The scare quotes you put around the word evidence are in themselves evidence that even you don't believe the previously debunked Rogers nonsense is worthy of that descriptor, but you post it anyway?

Expecting a different result this time around, are you?
 
Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The same Rogers who has already been thoroughly discredited in this thread?
Click to expand...
Squeegee,
- Show me where on this thread. A lot has been said ostensibly "discrediting" Rogers, but where has this discrediting been convincing?
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Belz,
- That's because you don't know that I exist.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Of course I do. Nonsense aside, objective reality exists and is not dependent upon my or anyone's observation. It's the simplest explanation for our observations, is entirely consistent, and is unassailable. Plus, even if it were not true, things still work as they do, and therefore it is completely irrelevant.

Now, how about that C14 finding ?
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- Show me where on this thread. A lot has been said ostensibly "discrediting" Rogers, but where has this discrediting been convincing?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


Everywhere it's been posted.

Thing is though, Jabba, it's not a matter of convincing you but of convincing the neutral readership that you imagine is evaluating the material presented.

You'll need to direct your question at them, won't you?

How exactly do you propose to do that, by the way?
 
Belz... said:
Of course I do. Nonsense aside, objective reality exists and is not dependent upon my or anyone's observation. It's the simplest explanation for our observations, is entirely consistent, and is unassailable. Plus, even if it were not true, things still work as they do, and therefore it is completely irrelevant.

Now, how about that C14 finding ?
Click to expand...
Belz,
- You're probably right -- .99+? But that's my point -- I don't know that you're right. I don't know that you actually exist. But, I do know (100%) that I exist.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Belz,
- You're probably right -- .99+? But that's my point -- I don't know that you're right. I don't know that you actually exist. But, I do know (100%) that I exist.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

No you don't. You know you have experiences which seem to indicate that you exist, but that's it.

And about the 100% bit, absolute certainty is ridiculous. "certain, for all practical intents and purposes" is quite enough to "know" something.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- Show me where on this thread. A lot has been said ostensibly "discrediting" Rogers, but where has this discrediting been convincing?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Rich:

Why do you presume to cavil at what has been called "the most supervised 14C dating ever", with its multiple labs, observed protocols, and clear chain of evidence; yet champion Rogers, pretending you are "not convinced" by the things than make his claims, at best, dubious--including (but not limited to) his kitchen-chemistry "analyses" and the dubious provenance of his samples? Seriously...
 
Last edited:
Some of the participants in the sample-take procedure were true believers, right? And were they likely to say, "No, don't take a sample from there; that's a place that hasn't been patched. Take it from over there, where it has. That way, the sample will appear to be much newer than 100AD, and the cloth will look like a Medieval forgery."?
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...

Jabba, why are you ignoring the considered opinion of the foremost expert in the cloth comprising the TS?


Jabba said:
- Various scientists have found some patching on threads allegedly taken from the sampling area. ...
Click to expand...

Do you see the problem in this sentence, Jabba?
 
Jabba said:
1. I'm 99% convinced that "invisible French re-weaving" (the Frenway method) is not responsible for the carbon date arrived at.
Click to expand...
Technically, it's true.

2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
Click to expand...
And you base this on.....?

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.
Click to expand...
And you base this on.....?

Remember: this is the single most well-documented C14 sample IN HISTORY. If you think this one is wasn't well-enough documented, you necessarily must dismiss ALL C14 dating--including those tied to tree rings, which we know are accurate because we can count the rings.

4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.
Click to expand...
If part of the cloth is from the 13th century, and the rest of the threads were made at the same time, it's irrelevant. Grab samples are legitimate samples (EPA Region 9 samlping guidelines; I'll admit it's been 2 years since I've looked carefully at those, but given that I take samples like this as part of my job I'm pretty confident that nothing's changed).

- Various scientists have found some patching on threads allegedly taken from the sampling area. ...
Click to expand...
Those same scientists that couldn't see the patch?

Also, why the devil do you believe scientists who have undocumented samples that may or may not represent actual threads of the shroud, but not those that took the single most well-documented sample ever taken? Could it be that you're basing your assessment of the studies based on how well it supports your opinion, rather than the quality of the research?

Squeegee,
- Show me where on this thread. A lot has been said ostensibly "discrediting" Rogers, but where has this discrediting been convincing?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Jabba, at this point I assume that NOTHING that disagrees with you will be convincing to you. You dismiss arguments against your conclusion simply because they disprove your conclusion. You're dishonest. One consequence of that is that we cannot trust your judgement about what arguments are convincing.
 
Jabba said:
- 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
Click to expand...

Jabba,

Did you notice how little actual data is in the Rogers publication? He goes on and on in the text about differences among the Raes sample, threads supposedly lifted from the image portion, and a few threads from the "radiocarbon dated samples" of absolutely unclear origin. Yet almost no actual data is presented to prove his statements! He shows a few photos of samples at different magnifications, which makes comparison impossible. He shows two mass specs trying to conclude that the image samples and Rae's samples differed. But does he present photos of any of the many other differences he claims he sees under the microscope and in response to is chemical tests? No. Does he, in fact, show any mass spec.data from the "radiocarbon dated samples"? No. This is not how most scientific papers are written. In fact, most scientific papers show the data for every conclusion they reach, and one can understand the publication simply by looking at the figures and graphs in the absence of the text.

Why does Rogers include unimportant and relatively meaningless data but leaves out the most important and exciting data, the very results that would prove his conclusions?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom