Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Blue Mountain]

A question. Dinwar has mentioned more that once in this thread the fact he took samples in the field and simply sent them to the lab for analysis, and the company made expensive decisions based on those samples. The company accepted at face value Dinwar's word about the origin and providence of the samples.

Ray Rogers received samples from Prof. Luigi Gonella, who said they were from the sample cut from the Shroud in April 1988 for carbon-dating project. Rogers accepted that claim at face value.

Knowing that labs and companies accept the word of the person providing the sample regarding its source and provenance, do we reject the Rogers sample when all we have is the word of the person who supplied it?

I want to add there are lots of other problems with the Rogers paper, but I wanted to get opinions on the subject I posted above. Some have noted that the samples were destroyed in testing, but Gonella claims to have excised some threads from the samples some time between them being cut from the shroud and being placed into sample containers for shipment to the labs.

 

[IanS]

A question. Dinwar has mentioned more that once in this thread the fact he took samples in the field and simply sent them to the lab for analysis, and the company made expensive decisions based on those samples. The company accepted at face value Dinwar's word about the origin and providence of the samples.

Ray Rogers received samples from Prof. Luigi Gonella, who said they were from the sample cut from the Shroud in April 1988 for carbon-dating project. Rogers accepted that claim at face value.

Knowing that labs and companies accept the word of the person providing the sample regarding its source and provenance, do we reject the Rogers sample when all we have is the word of the person who supplied it?

I want to add there are lots of other problems with the Rogers paper, but I wanted to get opinions on the subject I posted above. Some have noted that the samples were destroyed in testing, but Gonella claims to have excised some threads from the samples some time between them being cut from the shroud and being placed into sample containers for shipment to the labs.

No doubt Dinwar can tell us about it himself, but one obvious difference might be that Dinwar was supposed to be at his location with access to samples that were not world famous and not a matter of great international dispute.

Whereas Gonella was present as part of a group of about 30 or more observers, but was not one of the people chosen to cut and handle the samples. Far less was he or anyone else authorised to somehow "invisibly" remove part of the centre of the cut sample.

If Gonella ever did any such thing, then it has never been genuinely explained how could have done that, and it certainly would have been in total contradiction to what everyone present believed they just witnessed as the agreed procedure.

By the way iirc (I can check it) - some years after the Raes sample was cut in 1973, parts of that sample were posted back to church officials in Italy. So it’s quite possible that Gonella may have had access to those 1973 samples rather than being able to secretly remove part of the C14 sample.

 

[pakeha]

That link isn't working for me. How about this one or this one?

Either would do the trick, Lucian.
Or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devils_(film)

 

[pakeha]

A question. Dinwar has mentioned more that once in this thread the fact he took samples in the field and simply sent them to the lab for analysis, and the company made expensive decisions based on those samples. The company accepted at face value Dinwar's word about the origin and providence of the samples.

Ray Rogers received samples from Prof. Luigi Gonella, who said they were from the sample cut from the Shroud in April 1988 for carbon-dating project. Rogers accepted that claim at face value.

Knowing that labs and companies accept the word of the person providing the sample regarding its source and provenance, do we reject the Rogers sample when all we have is the word of the person who supplied it?

I want to add there are lots of other problems with the Rogers paper, but I wanted to get opinions on the subject I posted above. Some have noted that the samples were destroyed in testing, but Gonella claims to have excised some threads from the samples some time between them being cut from the shroud and being placed into sample containers for shipment to the labs.

No doubt Dinwar can tell us about it himself, but one obvious difference might be that Dinwar was supposed to be at his location with access to samples that were not world famous and not a matter of great international dispute.

Whereas Gonella was present as part of a group of about 30 or more observers, but was not one of the people chosen to cut and handle the samples. Far less was he or anyone else authorised to somehow "invisibly" remove part of the centre of the cut sample.

If Gonella ever did any such thing, then it has never been genuinely explained how could have done that, and it certainly would have been in total contradiction to what everyone present believed they just witnessed as the agreed procedure.

By the way iirc (I can check it) - some years after the Raes sample was cut in 1973, parts of that sample were posted back to church officials in Italy. So it’s quite possible that Gonella may have had access to those 1973 samples rather than being able to secretly remove part of the C14 sample.

An interesting point.
I'd always understood Gonella claimed he had access to bits of the Raes sample.

 

[Jabba]

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

Jabba,

It seems to me that your position regarding a patch has changed very little. Please correct this timeline in case I have it wrong.

- I think that my position has changed more than it appears.

You came here believing that some sort of patch was the most likely reason for the carbon 14 dates, but you did not know how such a patch was possible.

- Yes.

Further research suggested that a French weaving technique might have achieved the invisibility necessary.

- Yes.

But even further research suggested that the French weaving technique used threads from other parts of the shroud. So you reject French weaving.

- Yes.

That brings us back to your initial position that there was a patch, but you don't know how it got there.

- I think that there was something done, somewhere back in time, to that particular area of the Shroud that was not done to the greater Shroud.

It seems like you've progressed, but progressed in a circle right back to your initial point.

- Not quite. While I do think that there was something "different" done to that area of the Shroud, I'm much less convinced (than I had been previously) that an actual "patch" of some size was involved.

Once again, am I missing something important?...

- I think that the only thing you're missing is my alleged evidence that something different had been done to that area of the Shroud. I alluded to that evidence previously, but didn't give any specific supportive claims except for a few paragraphs from the Rogers' paper. It's now up to me to provide the other specific claims I was alluding to.
- Unfortunately, I have to admit now that in reviewing one of the other sources to which I alluded, I discovered that the Raes source, was (apparently) not my only source that only referred to the Raes sample...

--- Jabba

 

[Filippo Lippi]

21 (twenty one) years

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Jabba, you still haven't substantiated this post:

Pixel,
- I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

A question. Dinwar has mentioned more that once in this thread the fact he took samples in the field and simply sent them to the lab for analysis, and the company made expensive decisions based on those samples. The company accepted at face value Dinwar's word about the origin and providence of the samples.

Ray Rogers received samples from Prof. Luigi Gonella, who said they were from the sample cut from the Shroud in April 1988 for carbon-dating project. Rogers accepted that claim at face value.

Knowing that labs and companies accept the word of the person providing the sample regarding its source and provenance, do we reject the Rogers sample when all we have is the word of the person who supplied it?

I want to add there are lots of other problems with the Rogers paper, but I wanted to get opinions on the subject I posted above. Some have noted that the samples were destroyed in testing, but Gonella claims to have excised some threads from the samples some time between them being cut from the shroud and being placed into sample containers for shipment to the labs.

A fair question.

They didn't accept it at face value. I was (and am--I spent today leading a sampling effort, in fact) require to extensively document my work, in a bound field notebook in indellible ink (black or blue). I submitted the samples under an unbroken chain of custody(COC). There were also others who were also documenting the proceedings, including a photo survey of the trenches we took the samples from. They're not exactly accepting my word at face value; technically, they're accepting the COC (in fact, that's legally what they're doing).

If it's proven that my samples--ANY samples, from the first ones I ever touched to the ones I shipped before coming home this evening--were fraudulant, my career is OVER and I'm probably going to spend time in jail. The mere accusation of inaccuracy can be enough to get me fired. There are EXTREME consequences to this sort of thing, and field geologists take equivalently extreme care with our sampling. The samples I took today--standard dirt samples--were documented in four places, with copies sent to several people. And this is minor stuff, just fact-checking.

Also, as IanS said, I'm not exactly working with world-famous relics here. I was sampling bits of charcoal (almost certainly natural) in a trench in the middle of nowhere. Those C14 samples were minor samples, and required minor documentation. The more serious the sample, the more documentation required. Sampling a world-famous relic is a pretty major sample. Furthermore, I've established myself as someone capable of taking these samples, and competant at standard sampling procedures (EPA Region 9 and standard paleontological sampling, to be specific), via training under recognized experts. And again, there's the chains of custody--they are unbroken, and included in the reports that discuss the lab results (one appendix is always the lab results, and within that is the COC for those samples).

THAT is the major issue: the chain of custody. My samples are valid because, in major part, that chain is documented and unbroken. The chain of custody for the sticky-tape fibers, however, is not--meaning that no one can prove the fibers tested were actually fibers from the shroud. We could, if they were available, do trace-chemical analysis on them to prove it, but this has not been done to my knowledge, so the chain remains broken. The samples, simply put, are inadmissible because we don't know where they're from.

If Rogers produces an unbroken chain of custody, this objection disapears. Until then, we simply cannot know where the samples came from. He SAYS they're from the shroud, but in science it's not enough to say something. You need to prove it.

I want to emphasize that I'm merely giving this to provide the information; it's been an agravating day, so my tone is probably not the best. Please don't read any anger into this--I'm happy to answer the question.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
--- Jabba

Rich:

In your post 5138, on the "Shroud" thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=5138), you said, "I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective". Several posters have asked you to substantiate this claim.

I am of the opinion that you really should either provide evidence to support this...odd...claim, or withdraw it and apologize.

Posting past it, acting as if you did not say it, hoping it will go away--none of these are honorable responses.

Seriously.

If you truly believe that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", you have the responsibility to demonstrate why you believe that. It is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is substantiated by a majority of "everyone involved".

Personally, I would settle for a demonstration that a plurality, or a DOC-level "most" (30% or so), or a significant number, of "everyone involved" is of the opinion that the control samples were not effective".

As it stands, you have not bothered to demonstrate that anyone other than you holds this opinion.

If you do not believe that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", you should say so, retract your statement, and apologize.

I am of the opinion that you should resolve this issue before you go on to anything else.

You did not respond to my PM--I hope you will not ignore the issue here.
__________________

 

[John Jones]

- I think that my position has changed more than it appears.


[...]

--- Jabba

And back again over and over from what I can tell. It's hard for me to be certain, but it seems that the only consistent position you have held is that the SoT is the genuine shroud of Christ, evidence be damned.

 

[IanS]

An interesting point.
I'd always understood Gonella claimed he had access to bits of the Raes sample.

During the Vatican’s ten years of endless meetings and “protocols” about whether or not they would allow C14 dating, the idea was originally to re-use the Raes samples for C14. The obvious attraction being no further loss of material from the shroud.

In the end the main reason they decided against re-using the Raes sample was because Raes had kept his samples for a number of years before simply putting the bits in an envelope and posting them back to the church in Italy where they apparently kicked around largely forgotten in someone’s desk drawer for several more years.

So one obvious problem was that any amount of contamination and degradation may have happened to the Raes samples in the 15 years of mostly careless handling between 1973 and the C14 dating in 1988.

In 1978 STURP members (inc. Ray Rogers) also collected surface debris from all over the shroud using sticky tape. As the Cardinals chief scientific advisor and main "keeper of the shroud", Gonella would have probably been present throughout all that STURP activity in 1978. And he may well have had some of the fibres from STURPS sticky tape.

Finally, iirc from Gove’s book (can be checked) - Gonella and his assistant Giovanni Riggi, seemed to be in the habit of wearing cotton gloves whenever they handled the shroud. And presumably Gonella and Riggi would have insisted that STURP members also wore the same cotton gloves in their 1978 tests. However, from memory I think the result of that was that loose cotton fibres from their gloves were found on most if not all samples ever taken from the shroud, eg the Raes sample, STURPS sticky takes, and probably the C14 sample too.

Again iirc - part of that edge or "hem" of the shroud was originally attached to the main area of the shroud with a red coloured stitching. And the Oxford C14 lab actually removed a small length of that red stitching thread from their sample before running the C14.

 

[Blue Mountain]

A fair question.

They didn't accept it at face value. I was (and am--I spent today leading a sampling effort, in fact) require to extensively document my work, in a bound field notebook in indellible ink (black or blue). I submitted the samples under an unbroken chain of custody(COC). There were also others who were also documenting the proceedings, including a photo survey of the trenches we took the samples from. They're not exactly accepting my word at face value; technically, they're accepting the COC (in fact, that's legally what they're doing).
<some snippage>

THAT is the major issue: the chain of custody. My samples are valid because, in major part, that chain is documented and unbroken. The chain of custody for the sticky-tape fibers, however, is not--meaning that no one can prove the fibers tested were actually fibers from the shroud. We could, if they were available, do trace-chemical analysis on them to prove it, but this has not been done to my knowledge, so the chain remains broken. The samples, simply put, are inadmissible because we don't know where they're from.

If Rogers produces an unbroken chain of custody, this objection disappears. Until then, we simply cannot know where the samples came from. He SAYS they're from the shroud, but in science it's not enough to say something. You need to prove it.

Thank you! You've made it clear the lab isn't accepting your word for it: they're accepting the documentation and the chain of custody. Both of which are notably lacking from the samples Rogers tested in his paper, as you noted.

I want to emphasize that I'm merely giving this to provide the information; it's been an agravating day, so my tone is probably not the best. Please don't read any anger into this--I'm happy to answer the question.

Given that a major contributor to this thread has impugned your profession, credentials, and methods on more than one occasion, I'm not surprised you're a bit touchy. Thanks again for a comprehensive explanation.

 

[John Jones]

Rich:

In your post 5138, on the "Shroud" thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=5138), you said, "I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective". Several posters have asked you to substantiate this claim.

I am of the opinion that you really should either provide evidence to support this...odd...claim, or withdraw it and apologize.

Posting past it, acting as if you did not say it, hoping it will go away--none of these are honorable responses.

Seriously.

If you truly believe that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", you have the responsibility to demonstrate why you believe that. It is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is substantiated by a majority of "everyone involved".

Personally, I would settle for a demonstration that a plurality, or a DOC-level "most" (30% or so), or a significant number, of "everyone involved" is of the opinion that the control samples were not effective".

As it stands, you have not bothered to demonstrate that anyone other than you holds this opinion.

If you do not believe that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", you should say so, retract your statement, and apologize.

I am of the opinion that you should resolve this issue before you go on to anything else.

You did not respond to my PM--I hope you will not ignore the issue here.
__________________

Jabba, do you intend to respond to this point? No one but you appears to doubt the effectiveness of the ¹⁴C dating controls, and you have been contemptibly reticent to support your claim.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Indirect Evidence/Blood

Jabba, you still haven't substantiated this post:

Squeegee,
- I've been babysitting a sick, 18 month old grand daughter the last couple of days...
- But, I am working on it... If you have Harry Gove's book, look on pages 154, 156 & 157. I'll get a copy of the quotes -- and others -- as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Squeegee,
- I've been babysitting a sick, 18 month old grand daughter the last couple of days...
- But, I am working on it... If you have Harry Gove's book, look on pages 154, 156 & 157. I'll get a copy of the quotes -- and others -- as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

Rich:

My sympathies to your granddaughter.

However, if you have time to post at ALL, you have time to explain your scurrilous accusation that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective".

If you mean, "The 'people on MY side' claim that there was a problem with the control samples", say so.

If you mean, "I want to believe that the cloth is the True Shroud^TM, so I have to pretend that there are problems somewhere, and selecting the control samples is good enough", say so.

If you mean, "The experts who have tested the cloth handled the control samples incompetently", say so.

I, for one, do NOT "accept that the control samples were not effective".

You should explain what you mean, and support it; or withdraw this offensive accusation and apologize.

 

[John Jones]

Squeegee,
- I've been babysitting a sick, 18 month old grand daughter the last couple of days...
- But, I am working on it... If you have Harry Gove's book, look on pages 154, 156 & 157. I'll get a copy of the quotes -- and others -- as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

Has your grand daughter been sick all the time you've been debating and 'researching' this topic?

Why do you not have time to justify your unsupported claim about ¹⁴C control data? You took the time to make it in the first place.

Do you understand how often you rationalize some ridiculous statement by claiming limited research time?

Do you understand that your credibility is not a boomerang?

Pfft!

 

[Slowvehicle]

http://www.rochester.edu/currents/V28/V28N03/story06.html

"One scientist's work has been instrumental in proving that Vikings thrived in the New World five centuries before Columbus, that the Shroud of Turin is far too young to be the burial cloth of Jesus, and that scientists vastly underestimated the radioactive effects of the Hiroshima bomb."

Who, you ask?

Dr. Harry Gove...

 

[pakeha]

^
Ouch.

...THAT is the major issue: the chain of custody. My samples are valid because, in major part, that chain is documented and unbroken. The chain of custody for the sticky-tape fibers, however, is not--meaning that no one can prove the fibers tested were actually fibers from the shroud. We could, if they were available, do trace-chemical analysis on them to prove it, but this has not been done to my knowledge, so the chain remains broken. The samples, simply put, are inadmissible because we don't know where they're from.

If Rogers produces an unbroken chain of custody, this objection disapears. Until then, we simply cannot know where the samples came from. He SAYS they're from the shroud, but in science it's not enough to say something. You need to prove it.

I want to emphasize that I'm merely giving this to provide the information; it's been an agravating day, so my tone is probably not the best. Please don't read any anger into this--I'm happy to answer the question.

Thanks for the insight into just what sample-taking involves to establish a chain of custody.

During the Vatican’s ten years of endless meetings and “protocols” about whether or not they would allow C14 dating, the idea was originally to re-use the Raes samples for C14. The obvious attraction being no further loss of material from the shroud.

In the end the main reason they decided against re-using the Raes sample was because Raes had kept his samples for a number of years before simply putting the bits in an envelope and posting them back to the church in Italy where they apparently kicked around largely forgotten in someone’s desk drawer for several more years.

So one obvious problem was that any amount of contamination and degradation may have happened to the Raes samples in the 15 years of mostly careless handling between 1973 and the C14 dating in 1988.

In 1978 STURP members (inc. Ray Rogers) also collected surface debris from all over the shroud using sticky tape. As the Cardinals chief scientific advisor and main "keeper of the shroud", Gonella would have probably been present throughout all that STURP activity in 1978. And he may well have had some of the fibres from STURPS sticky tape.

Finally, iirc from Gove’s book (can be checked) - Gonella and his assistant Giovanni Riggi, seemed to be in the habit of wearing cotton gloves whenever they handled the shroud. And presumably Gonella and Riggi would have insisted that STURP members also wore the same cotton gloves in their 1978 tests. However, from memory I think the result of that was that loose cotton fibres from their gloves were found on most if not all samples ever taken from the shroud, eg the Raes sample, STURPS sticky takes, and probably the C14 sample too.

Again iirc - part of that edge or "hem" of the shroud was originally attached to the main area of the shroud with a red coloured stitching. And the Oxford C14 lab actually removed a small length of that red stitching thread from their sample before running the C14.

Thanks, IanS!
I suppose we could also keep in mind the debris Mme. Flury-Lemburg commented had accumulated over the ages between the TS and the Holland cloth backing. Obvioiusly not enough to affect he dating in any way, but could account for the odd fibres.
Still, the cotton gloves used by the STURP investigators are enough to account for the cotton fibres found on the sticky tapes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is fun

 

[Aepervius]

This is fun

So they tested traction and chemical composition, found some similarity to other clothing around 1 AD , and voila ! 14C be damned, the type of weaving technic not being found in other contemporain shroud be damned. All other evidence be damned.

As a method of dating I cannot think of anything much worst. Ignoring 14C testing and using seemingly random unproved method of dating seems to be a tradition in italian sindone universities.