Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[JabbaPapa]

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.

Not sure about "seriously" per se -- I wouldn't consider myself a "Shroudie" of any kind -- but I can't deny having a certain degree of interest in the strange nature of this object.

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

Because not all evidence is of the material analysis variety -- IIRC the most plausible pre-14th century reference to "possibly-the-Shroud" is from the 10th century (?).

That is to say, in a 10th century (?) manuscript.

If a literary/iconographic artefact of the 10th century can be verified as containing such a reference, this would constitute evidence to support the "bad dating" theory.

Of course, it would also support various other competing theories -- for example the one about the Shroud being a copy of an earlier item ; or the one about several such items having once existed ; etc.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

That seems incompatible with the 50% figure that somebody else mentioned ...

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

Now that I think about it, I've only ever seen them in a video -- I'd have to do some digging.

The head section ones are unconfirmed for a different reason than the ones I'm thinking of -- they are unconfirmed because they may (or may not) be representations of the Veil of Veronica -- a similar artefact, but with a face only. Its existence has been dated back to the 8th century, confirmed -- but it has been lost since the 16th century.

Data referring to the Veil of Veronica confuses the nature of some of the pre-14th century references.

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

Good point.

 

[Kid Eager]

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.....
.

Even if that were true (references, please), It doesn't reproduce the image in the shroud, as the shroud image is an idealised 2-d representation, not a transfer print (with or without radiation, lasers, or nanobot sharks) from a wrapped body.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Are you saying non-falsifiable speculation about soil types and pollen trumps C14 dating?

Not sure about "seriously" per se -- I wouldn't consider myself a "Shroudie" of any kind -- but I can't deny having a certain degree of interest in the strange nature of this object.



Because not all evidence is of the material analysis variety -- IIRC the most plausible pre-14th century reference to "possibly-the-Shroud" is from the 10th century (?).

That is to say, in a 10th century (?) manuscript.

If a literary/iconographic artefact of the 10th century can be verified as containing such a reference, this would constitute evidence to support the "bad dating" theory.

Of course, it would also support various other competing theories -- for example the one about the Shroud being a copy of an earlier item ; or the one about several such items having once existed ; etc.

"If a literary/iconographic artefact of the 10th century can be verified as containing such a reference, this would constitute evidence to support the "bad dating" theory."

Could you provide links to this artefact, please?
I'd like to see what you found so convincing.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Are you saying non-falsifiable speculation about soil types and pollen trumps C14 dating?

No.

 

[pakeha]

Then why put those ideas on the table?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Even if that were true (references, please), It doesn't reproduce the image in the shroud, as the shroud image is an idealised 2-d representation, not a transfer print (with or without radiation, lasers, or nanobot sharks) from a wrapped body.

It is a transfer print (of whatever nature) from a wrapped body.

The 3D artist who recently created a 3D image derived from the front and back images on the Shroud had to compensate for the distortion caused by that wrapping.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Then why put those ideas on the table?

I didn't -- somebody else asked a question about those claims.

 

[abaddon]

It is a transfer print (of whatever nature) from a wrapped body.

Nope. It is anatomically impossible.

The 3D artist who recently created a 3D image derived from the front and back images on the Shroud had to compensate for the distortion caused by that wrapping.

Reference? Or will you have to go digging?

 

[pakeha]

I didn't -- somebody else asked a question about those claims.

Here's the referenced post

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.

Here's your comment
"...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. "

Now, would you please explain why you think this non-falsifiable speculation is relevant to a discussion about dating the TS?
A link to mentioned study wouldn't be amiss, either.

 

[Aepervius]

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

Because there is no known chemical process which would allow for that while at the same time maintaining the visual aspect of the fiber.

You can always pretend it is not impossible because of some unknown hithertio process, but then you can claim that for *ALL* scientific results. Apple falling ? Not gravity but some unknown hithertion process.

The point is that such amount of carbon replacement is unprecedented in litterature.

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

Nope it begins at dose much lwoer that that. Remember the sentence is not "it is a total impossibility " but rather "it is a total impossibility within our current knowledge of physic, chemistry"

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.

Mention of *shrouds* existed of before 14th century. Heck the bible mention two shrouds I think, one for the head one for the body. Mention of THAT specific shroud would be a claim you would have to provide evidence for !

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

Nope. See above.

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.

Nope. Because you would have to provide evidence this is the SAME shroud, and good luck with that.

Carbon dating invalidate that the earlier picture are the same shroud. YOu take it the otehr way around as if you take the shroud picture to be more valid than a carbon dating like Jabba does. In fact this is the totally contrary , the scientifically repeatible experience , invalidate that previous picture are iof the same shroud.

 

[abaddon]

I didn't -- somebody else asked a question about those claims.

Sure, someone asked a question about those claims, and you now own them since you supported them. With a reference that you just don't have right now, but will look up later. Sometime. Maybe.

Emergent pattern is emergent.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

It is not evidence of the claim. You could probably reproduce the image using some weird very modern very technological methods. That does not means it was done that way or that it provide evidence for such phenomenon ! It only means that you found a modern way to duplicate a results.

I could imagine using a particle accelerator and collecting the gold in gas form and using gas vapor deposition to reproduce a touthenkamon death mask. That does not validate at all the method which was really used. It only means I can do the same with a more complicated modern method.

De Facto the modern method does not provide evidence of anything whatsoever about the old artefact.

 

[Aepervius]

That seems incompatible with the 50% figure that somebody else mentioned ...

Not directely. Fiber Cotton ahs a formula with C, H, O , a roughly polymere of C12O9H17 so per carbon atome about 0.75 O and 1.5 H so by molecular weight less than 1 C and 1 O.

On the other hand the contamination would be by modern CO or more likely modern CO2 due to the fire (unless you want to come weith somethong even more weirder) which means 1 C and 2 O.

So by weight, to replace 50% of the C, by my count you would need more than the weight
of the total fiber. (unelss I made a calculation error)

ETA and again you would have to come with a chemical process to do that for 50% of the carbon without even altering the fiber nature ... Good luck with that, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a peer reviewed article which has shown such process for such massive amount of C, while at the same time many other burnt artefact never display the same process.

 

[Aepervius]

It is a transfer print (of whatever nature) from a wrapped body.

The 3D artist who recently created a 3D image derived from the front and back images on the Shroud had to compensate for the distortion caused by that wrapping.

A truly wrapped body induce distortion in the picture on the 2D resulting surface. Such distortion are not shown on the shroud.

ETA: I did it once upthread, but I retried now :
1) plonged my face into water to make her wet
2) using absorbing paper I let fall down on my face naturally
3) the surface of wet paper due to my wet jaw is about 1/3 larger than the apparent surface of my face in 2D projected from a picture of me.

Again such distortion are NOT seen in the shroud. Please ponder that. (there are other distortion which should not be seen mentionned upthread : blood which does not look like that when in hair, etc...)

ETAETA: and now I am searching in my flat where the heck I put my glasses away before wetting my face

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A truly wrapped body induce distortion in the picture on the 2D resulting surface. Such distortion are not shown on the shroud.

For more on this, I suggest JabbaPappa looks at this website, at the section on that page entitled "Toward a Kinoderm Aesthetics". There are two examples of what a face looks like if it's been stretched out flat, as would happen if we were looking at a picture created by wrapping a cloth around a head.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, SB.
Speaking of links, I'm looking forward to seeing Jabbapapa's very much indeed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is a transfer print (of whatever nature) from a wrapped body.

The 3D artist who recently created a 3D image derived from the front and back images on the Shroud had to compensate for the distortion caused by that wrapping.

Greetings, JabbaPappa! Welcome to the mess.

However...

The anatomically inaccurate representational image of a Byzantine-styled figure on the medieval artifact does not show any distortion from being wrapped around a supposed body. You can demonstrate this to yourself, quite simply, by painting a measured grid on the head and face of a mannequin; then, while the paint is still wet, carefully wrapping a clean towel around it. Even if you "wrap" the mannequin by placing the towel flat on the face and allowing it to drape around the top and sides of the head, when you "unwrap" the towel, the grid will be significantly distorted. The "3-d artist" did not have to "compensate" for the "distortion" of the image on the cloth, as you can see from any reliable photograph--while the image is anatomically inaccurate, and in an anatomically impossible position, it is not "distorted", as it would have been had the cloth been wrapped around a body.

ETA: Ninja'd by Aepervirus and Squeegee Beckingham...

 

[John Jones]

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.

People that actually do radiocarbon dating don't see any problem with the way the SoT was handled.

I recommend you read this whole thread before continuing. These issues have been dealy with before.

 

[IanS]

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.

.

"Continually accruing evidence disagreeing with the C14 dates" ? What evidence is that?

I hope you are not going to cite the claims of well known Christian religious shroud believers as "evidence"?

The crucial factor here is that in 1988 for the very first time (and still in fact the only time) the shroud was directly dated by genuine independent expert research scientists at three different specialist labs using an established modern dating technique.

The results of that study have been published in the real scientific research literature.

If you want to claim evidence countering that C14 study, then you must cite real independent research scientists who have similarly published such evidence in the genuine research journals.

The problem is that apparently there is no such evidence against the C14 dates. No such papers have ever been published. Whereas, in complete contrast, afaik in the 25 years since that C14 dating, no real independent scientist has ever published any paper claiming those dates are significantly in any error.


If all you have is the self-published claims of religious internet shroud fanatics, then frankly that is worth no more than the countless Creationists who cite complete mountains of “scientific” evidence against evolution. … Only trouble is, none of their “evidence” has ever met the standard for genuine publication in any real research journals. That's apart from the fact that we all know what happend in the Dover trial.