Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[John Jones]

Yep. Or the conspiracy sub-forum.
I'm concerned that some well-meaning, but naive bystander will read Jabba's nonsense, and think there is a case for the SoT being an authentic 1st century relic.

That would be tragic.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Yep. Or the conspiracy sub-forum.
I'm concerned that some well-meaning, but naive bystander will read Jabba's nonsense, and think there is a case for the SoT being an authentic 1st century relic.

That would be tragic.

Do do that, the reader would have to read only Jabba's posts and ignore all the others.

Mind you, that's what believer sites are for ...

 

[The Norseman]

Do do that, the reader would have to read only Jabba's posts and ignore all the others.

Mind you, that's what believer sites are for ...

You mean like jabba's own website/blog?

 

[JabbaPapa]

OK -- I know this will be confusing to some, but I am not the same Jabba.

I somewhat disagree with Jabba's positions on the question of the Shroud.

Having said that, I am convinced that a great many people are irrationally clinging to the radiocarbon dating results despite the continuing accrual of evidence disagreeing with that dating.

One point of disagreement that I have with Jabba -- there is NO QUESTION but that the radiocarbon dating was performed professionally and accurately ; therefore, the results of that dating simply cannot be rejected on the basis of some sort of conspiracy theory.

The ONLY way for that dating to be inaccurate is if the samples analyses were contaminated with carbon isotopes, providing a false dating -- something that has sometimes been observed in other artefacts BTW.

The dating is contested on the basis of two types of information -- first, a parallel dating was made using vegetable fragments that are present on the Shroud ; I've been trying to relocate details of this experiment, without much success ; but IIRC it provides a (VERY imprecise) dating of ~1000 BC - ~800 AD or thereabouts ; which contradicts the radiocarbon dating.

Second, there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin ; plus one far more dubious source from late Antiquity. This particular type of contrary evidence is, of course, far less precise than the empirical -- because multiple theories are possible to account for this discrepancy -- but it is nevertheless evidence that potentially contradicts the radiocarbon dating.

This does NOT prove the radiocarbon dating to be "wrong" ; but it is a sufficient degree of contrary evidence that the mediaeval origin must be viewed not as an established fact, but as a theory.

As for the reweaving possibility -- my disagreement with Jabba would be that he's assuming that the restoration technique that he refers to is the only possible technique ; my understanding of the "invisible reweaving" **theory** is that a separate group of fabric experts has proposed that a completely different restoration technique than the "french reweaving" existed in the Middle Ages. I have my doubts about this story -- but it's not one that I'd rule out without some very good reasons to do so.

It is, however, the only rational theory I'm aware of so far that could account for the possibility of increased amounts of the carbon isotope in the test samples.

The possibility of human biological contamination cannot, I suppose, be completely discounted -- notwithstanding its apparent unlikelihood ; given that iconography representing the Shroud being publicly displayed by clergy shows them holding the Shroud, systematically, by physically holding it at locations that were later chosen for the taking of the test samples. I have NO IDEA if biological materials vehicled by the sweaty hands of such clergy into the fabric over the course of some centuries of holding the Shroud always in these same locations would be sufficient to increase the carbon in those samples to such a degree that it would completely skew the dating, as some proponents of the earlier dating have suggested.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The ONLY way for that dating to be inaccurate is if the samples analyses were contaminated with carbon isotopes, providing a false dating -- something that has sometimes been observed in other artefacts BTW.

For you to assert that this is the case will require 2 things. The first is for you to work out how much contamination would be necessary to skew the results enough for a 1st century piece of cloth to give a reading of a 14th century piece of cloth. The second is for you to establish what credible reason you have for assuming that all three labs who carried out the tests were so incompetent and/or dishonest that they didn't wash and prepare the samples in the way they claimed they did and didn't notice that level of contamination of the samples.

I can't expect you to read through the whole thread, as it's a monster, so I'll give you the answer to the first question - it's 50%. As in only half of the sample could have been actual cloth, and all of the rest of it would have to be contamination. Now all you need to do is come up with a credible explanation as to how this went unnoticed by 3 labs, and why they decided to change protocol and not clean the samples first.

Second, there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin ; plus one far more dubious source from late Antiquity. This particular type of contrary evidence is, of course, far less precise than the empirical -- because multiple theories are possible to account for this discrepancy -- but it is nevertheless evidence that potentially contradicts the radiocarbon dating.

The earliest confirmed mention of the Shroud is in a letter declaring it to be a forgery, and that fits in perfectly with the carbon dating.

The possibility of human biological contamination cannot, I suppose, be completely discounted -- notwithstanding its apparent unlikelihood ; given that iconography representing the Shroud being publicly displayed by clergy shows them holding the Shroud, systematically, by physically holding it at locations that were later chosen for the taking of the test samples. I have NO IDEA if biological materials vehicled by the sweaty hands of such clergy into the fabric over the course of some centuries of holding the Shroud always in these same locations would be sufficient to increase the carbon in those samples to such a degree that it would completely skew the dating, as some proponents of the earlier dating have suggested.

50%.

 

[Pixel42]

OK -- I know this will be confusing to some, but I am not the same Jabba.

Welcome, JabbaPapa - I assume you are the same one with whom I once argued about the shroud (and many other things) on Tenth Planet? When I first saw Jabba posting here about the shroud I thought it might be you, but I soon realised it wasn't.

You'll find the general level of scientific knowledge here quite a bit higher than it was on TP, I look forward to some interesting discussion.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

PuffHo showing their usual level of scientific rigour here. Even at a quick glance on my mobile, I can see some massive problems with the claims, but does anyone have the time to provide a comprehensive debunking?

I like the claim that there are trace elements "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem". It's a clear indication that this is all about finding excuses to stick with an existing view, rather than dispassionately following the evidence where it leads, but shroudies will lap it up.

 

[JabbaPapa]

You'll find the general level of scientific knowledge here quite a bit higher than it was on TP.

Good

 

[wardenclyffe]

Second, there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin

Hi JabbaPapa,

Could you tell us which sources you are talking about? I suspect we have dealt with them in this thread, but as has been pointed out, this thread is huge and no one expects you to read it all. If you could tell us about the earlier representations of the shroud, we might either learn something new or we could at least direct you to the earlier pages in this thread where we've discussed some of them and we could revive that discussion.

Thanks and welcome,

Ward

 

[pakeha]

Thanks....I think.

Always happy to bring happines to carbon-based lifeforms!

OK -- I know this will be confusing to some, but I am not the same Jabba.

I somewhat disagree with Jabba's positions on the question of the Shroud.

Having said that, I am convinced that a great many people are irrationally clinging to the radiocarbon dating results despite the continuing accrual of evidence disagreeing with that dating.

One point of disagreement that I have with Jabba -- there is NO QUESTION but that the radiocarbon dating was performed professionally and accurately ; therefore, the results of that dating simply cannot be rejected on the basis of some sort of conspiracy theory.

The ONLY way for that dating to be inaccurate is if the samples analyses were contaminated with carbon isotopes, providing a false dating -- something that has sometimes been observed in other artefacts BTW.

The dating is contested on the basis of two types of information -- first, a parallel dating was made using vegetable fragments that are present on the Shroud ; I've been trying to relocate details of this experiment, without much success ; but IIRC it provides a (VERY imprecise) dating of ~1000 BC - ~800 AD or thereabouts ; which contradicts the radiocarbon dating.

Second, there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin ; plus one far more dubious source from late Antiquity. This particular type of contrary evidence is, of course, far less precise than the empirical -- because multiple theories are possible to account for this discrepancy -- but it is nevertheless evidence that potentially contradicts the radiocarbon dating.

This does NOT prove the radiocarbon dating to be "wrong" ; but it is a sufficient degree of contrary evidence that the mediaeval origin must be viewed not as an established fact, but as a theory.

As for the reweaving possibility -- my disagreement with Jabba would be that he's assuming that the restoration technique that he refers to is the only possible technique ; my understanding of the "invisible reweaving" **theory** is that a separate group of fabric experts has proposed that a completely different restoration technique than the "french reweaving" existed in the Middle Ages. I have my doubts about this story -- but it's not one that I'd rule out without some very good reasons to do so.

It is, however, the only rational theory I'm aware of so far that could account for the possibility of increased amounts of the carbon isotope in the test samples.

The possibility of human biological contamination cannot, I suppose, be completely discounted -- notwithstanding its apparent unlikelihood ; given that iconography representing the Shroud being publicly displayed by clergy shows them holding the Shroud, systematically, by physically holding it at locations that were later chosen for the taking of the test samples. I have NO IDEA if biological materials vehicled by the sweaty hands of such clergy into the fabric over the course of some centuries of holding the Shroud always in these same locations would be sufficient to increase the carbon in those samples to such a degree that it would completely skew the dating, as some proponents of the earlier dating have suggested.

Welcome to the forum, JabbaPapa.

Are you talking about the debris apparently found on sticky tapes here?
"...The dating is contested on the basis of two types of information -- first, a parallel dating was made using vegetable fragments that are present on the Shroud ; I've been trying to relocate details of this experiment, without much success ; but IIRC it provides a (VERY imprecise) dating of ~1000 BC - ~800 AD or thereabouts ; which contradicts the radiocarbon dating."
I'm looking forward to seeing your sources for this, JabbaPapa.

Could you explain why you came to this conclusion?
"... there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin ; plus one far more dubious source from late Antiquity. This particular type of contrary evidence is, of course, far less precise than the empirical -- because multiple theories are possible to account for this discrepancy -- but it is nevertheless evidence that potentially contradicts the radiocarbon dating."
Could you provide links for these claims, please?


This is most intersting, JabbaPapa
"a separate group of fabric experts has proposed that a completely different restoration technique than the "french reweaving" existed in the Middle Ages. I have my doubts about this story -- but it's not one that I'd rule out without some very good reasons to do so."
Again, please provide links for this speculation.

Again, welcome to the Forum!

 

[JabbaPapa]

For you to assert that this is the case will require 2 things.

erm, I didn't "assert" it -- I simply referred to the fact that such claims have been made, via a sentence introduced by a conditional clause.

The first is for you to work out how much contamination would be necessary to skew the results enough for a 1st century piece of cloth to give a reading of a 14th century piece of cloth. The second is for you to establish what credible reason you have for assuming that all three labs who carried out the tests were so incompetent and/or dishonest that they didn't wash and prepare the samples in the way they claimed they did and didn't notice that level of contamination of the samples.

I can't expect you to read through the whole thread, as it's a monster, so I'll give you the answer to the first question - it's 50%. As in only half of the sample could have been actual cloth, and all of the rest of it would have to be contamination. Now all you need to do is come up with a credible explanation as to how this went unnoticed by 3 labs, and why they decided to change protocol and not clean the samples first.

Yes -- I've seen a similar analytical conclusion elsewhere ; but it does not fully answer the possibility of multiple sources of contamination, including contamination into the constituent materials of the weave themselves --- ALSO you are arbitrarily declaring that the only dating hypotheses for the Shroud must be 1st or 14th century ; I merely alluded to the possibility of enough contamination to provide a false dating ; I did not expect in this statement that such a false dating must necessarily involve a 1300 year margin of error.

Also, sorry but I've yet to see 100% convincing proof that such a degree of material replacement as ~50% is a total impossibility.

Total impossibility would require a ratio of replacement materials >100%

The earliest confirmed mention of the Shroud is in a letter declaring it to be a forgery, and that fits in perfectly with the carbon dating.

Careful, you're falling into an interpretative trap -- confirmed mentions of the Shroud prior to the 14th century are impossible, because the carbon dating has definitively established that at latest, the Shroud is 14th century.

Therefore, the terminus ante quem for a confirmed mention of the Shroud is also 14th century.

Any mentions of the Shroud earlier than 14th century CANNOT by definition be confirmed because of the very existence of the carbon dating result.

Such earlier mentions of an item resembling the Shroud do nevertheless constitute negative evidence concerning that dating result -- the quality of that evidence is a different question entirely.

 

[zooterkin]

PuffHo showing their usual level of scientific rigour here. Even at a quick glance on my mobile, I can see some massive problems with the claims, but does anyone have the time to provide a comprehensive debunking?

I like the claim that there are trace elements "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem". It's a clear indication that this is all about finding excuses to stick with an existing view, rather than dispassionately following the evidence where it leads, but shroudies will lap it up.

One of the comments is interesting, about the length of the hair on the image, not one I've seen before.

This so called professor states that hundreds of pieces of evidence point to the shroud being "from God". Yet all investigators involved in this matter overlook the most important piece of evidence. Jesus did NOT have LONG hair. In the first century neither the Romans nor the Jews had the custom of using long hair. The reason most people believe Jesus did is because most images of him originated in the middle ages and religious artists of the time relied on the customs of the day as a point of reference.
It would have been dishonorable for Jesus to use his hair long. The Apostle Paul made reference to this fact at 1 Corinthians 11:14 "Does not nature itself teach YOU that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?" It is made obvious by this that the shroud is from the middle ages.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you talking about the debris apparently found on sticky tapes here?

This could get sticky, as JabbaP seems to be having this discussion on 2 boards at once. I'll link to the other thread, although the site requires membership in order to read: http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23951&page=17 The new posts start at post #643.

The claim seems to be that there has been more recent testing of pollen samples which measures how much they have caramelised over time and calculates a date from that. It doesn't seem to make much sense, and he's not been able to substantiate this, but that appears to be the claim.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Could you tell us which sources you are talking about? I suspect we have dealt with them in this thread, but as has been pointed out, this thread is huge and no one expects you to read it all. If you could tell us about the earlier representations of the shroud, we might either learn something new or we could at least direct you to the earlier pages in this thread where we've discussed some of them and we could revive that discussion.

erm, memory's a bit hazy -- and there are only a bare handful of potential pre-14th century sources IIRC

There's a 10th century (?) iconographic representation in a book (I think ?) of an item very much resembling the Shroud -- but the image is also very small, therefore poorly detailed.

There are a couple of literary accounts describing a Shroud-like object, but their lack of descriptive detail is insufficient for any properly comparative purposes.

And there is *one* mention in Antiquity of a relic held somewhere in the Middle East that could be interpreted as being the Shroud.

Ring any bells ?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

erm, I didn't "assert" it -- I simply referred to the fact that such claims have been made, via a sentence introduced by a conditional clause.

Okay, so you're not claiming that the C14 dating is unreliable. Good.

Also, sorry but I've yet to see 100% convincing proof that such a degree of material replacement as ~50% is a total impossibility.

It's not totally impossible, as long as you're prepared to entertain the belief that everybody who handled the samples, including the labs, either didn't notice that level of contamination, or did notice but chose to ignore it.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The claim seems to be that there has been more recent testing of pollen samples which measures how much they have caramelised over time and calculates a date from that. It doesn't seem to make much sense, and he's not been able to substantiate this, but that appears to be the claim.

No -- I've simply mislaid the URL references to the scientific analysis for the time being.

Not being a chemist, I haven't the slightest ability to accurately represent the testing in my own words from memory -- and my own descriptions of it are therefore easily liable to be faulty.

 

[pakeha]

...Also, sorry but I've yet to see 100% convincing proof that such a degree of material replacement as ~50% is a total impossibility.

Total impossibility would require a ratio of replacement materials >100% ...

Are you saying Mme. Flury Lemburg and the restoration team of 2002 would not have noticed ~50% of material replacement in that area?

That the three labs in question in 1988 wouldn't have noticed it, either?
Nor ever the sampling team?

 

[pakeha]

This could get sticky, as JabbaP seems to be having this discussion on 2 boards at once. I'll link to the other thread, although the site requires membership in order to read: http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23951&page=17 The new posts start at post #643.

The claim seems to be that there has been more recent testing of pollen samples which measures how much they have caramelised over time and calculates a date from that. It doesn't seem to make much sense, and he's not been able to substantiate this, but that appears to be the claim.

Ah.
Since this is clearly something JabbaPapa takes seriously, how odd their posts don't include links to allow others to read what they've found so convincing.

erm, memory's a bit hazy -- and there are only a bare handful of potential pre-14th century sources IIRC

There's a 10th century (?) iconographic representation in a book (I think ?) of an item very much resembling the Shroud -- but the image is also very small, therefore poorly detailed.

There are a couple of literary accounts describing a Shroud-like object, but their lack of descriptive detail is insufficient for any properly comparative purposes.

And there is *one* mention in Antiquity of a relic held somewhere in the Middle East that could be interpreted as being the Shroud.

Ring any bells ?

It would be good if you explained why any of this has any signifance to dating the TS.

 

[Belz...]

Having said that, I am convinced that a great many people are irrationally clinging to the radiocarbon dating results despite the continuing accrual of evidence disagreeing with that dating.

And yet they all point to the middle ages.

The ONLY way for that dating to be inaccurate is if the samples analyses were contaminated with carbon isotopes, providing a false dating -- something that has sometimes been observed in other artefacts BTW.

Yes, and in the case of the shroud the contamination would have to weigh more than the shroud itself.

Second, there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating, that are -- at least arguably -- representations of the Shroud of Turin

You wouldn't mind providing them ? I've seen a few but they were all of the head section only.

It is, however, the only rational theory I'm aware of so far that could account for the possibility of increased amounts of the carbon isotope in the test samples.

Indeed. But since it's not possible for that reweaving to be invisible to the scientists...

 

[JabbaPapa]

Even at a quick glance on my mobile, I can see some massive problems with the claims, but does anyone have the time to provide a comprehensive debunking?

I like the claim that there are trace elements "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem". It's a clear indication that this is all about finding excuses to stick with an existing view, rather than dispassionately following the evidence where it leads, but shroudies will lap it up.

hmmmm ... "Fanti has written several papers about the shroud, including one in 2011 that hypothesized how radiation could have caused the image of a man's bloody face and body to appear on the cloth."

Strangely enough, there is a test supporting this claim -- because the specific structures of the imprints on the Shroud, forming the image, have been found to be reproducible using ultraviolet lasers.

(I'll try and find links supporting this various stuff later on)

Concerning the "trace elements "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem"", well it simply means that the attribution of a local origin of the Shroud to Jerusalem is not a falsifiable theory.

IIRC the pollen analysis comes up blank in the same way.

Non-falsifiability is insufficient to provide verification.