Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

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

- I’ve been babysitting.

JabbaPappa,

- Welcome aboard.
- It’s good to have someone else around that doesn’t believe that the carbon dating settled the issue.

- Did you catch the discussion about the Frenway method of French Re-weaving? Personally, I would like to believe that the Shroud is authentic, so I was hoping that the Frenway method, which claims to be actually invisible, could explain the carbon date. But the owner (President?) of the one company we’ve found that claims to use this method says that it requires using only undamaged threads from the original cloth in order to do the invisible patching – which means that the patching shouldn’t affect the date…
- Consequently, I’ve essentially given up the truly invisible explanation, and am hoping that a “semi-invisible” re-weaving can explain the date.

--- Jabba

 

[Bikewer]

Several news reports this morning mentioning the Shroud because of a new book again claiming that the radiocarbon tests were done on the "replaced" areas and that the shroud actually dates to Jesus' time....
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/29/shroud-turin-dates-back-to-jesus-era-study-says/

One article mentions that the researcher (an Italian...) used "spectrographic" techniques to assist his analysis.

Sounds like same-old-same-old... The Shroud enthusiasts, like Creationists, simply will not give up.

 

[Belz...]

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

Even "same weight as the rest of the shroud" is completely ridiculous. No ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Absolutely impossible. Such a transfer would lead to a lot more distortion. Also notice that NO HUMAN has arms like that. It's clearly not a representation of an actual body.

 

[Belz...]

- It’s good to have someone else around that doesn’t believe that the carbon dating settled the issue.

No, it's not. Adding another poster who doesn't accept hard evidence to the discussion is NOT a good thing.

 

[Akri]

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

Not necessarily--it depends on how much the contaminate weighs versus the weight of the cloth.

If you contaminate a box of feathers with 50% lead, the lead is going to weigh a lot more than the feathers.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

OK, I think I can accept that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I’ve been babysitting.

JabbaPappa,

- Welcome aboard.
- It’s good to have someone else around that doesn’t believe that the carbon dating settled the issue.

- Did you catch the discussion about the Frenway method of French Re-weaving? Personally, I would like to believe that the Shroud is authentic, so I was hoping that the Frenway method, which claims to be actually invisible, could explain the carbon date. But the owner (President?) of the one company we’ve found that claims to use this method says that it requires using only undamaged threads from the original cloth in order to do the invisible patching – which means that the patching shouldn’t affect the date…
- Consequently, I’ve essentially given up the truly invisible explanation, and am hoping that a “semi-invisible” re-weaving can explain the date.

--- Jabba

Rich:

Remember this?

"everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective"

You made the claim. You have ignored several posts and at least two PMs--do you intend to support this claim? Do you intend to repudiate this claim, and apologize?

...or are you hoping this insult will simply go away?

You really, really, need to address this issue.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Nope. It is anatomically impossible.

No, I've seen it demonstrated.

I've had this argument before, with others, elsewhere.

I think many people simply do not realise how burial shrouds were actually used in 1st century Palestine.

Ironically, in my experience the same people who like to claim "anatomical impossibility" are often quite happy to link to URLs detailing experiments recreating images similar to the Shroud by wrapping living volunteers up with similar linen sheets plus whatever tinctures.

Reference? Or will you have to go digging?

There was a History Channel programme about it.

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus

NOT a scientific paper, I very much realise -- but it was not a scientific undertaking in the first place, though its end results were quite startling.

Nevertheless, it includes a successful demonstration of the theory that the Shroud is a print of a corpse.

 

[Jabba]

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

- Do I need to say anything more about my earlier claim that, "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective"?
- I meant that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective, in that they were not effectively blinded, and consequently did not preclude bias on the part of those involved.
- I still think that at least many of the people involved were relevantly biased, and that their biases did affect the procedures. I can try to support that claim -- or, I can get on with trying to support my claim that patching was apparently involved.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

- Oops.
- Does anyone but slowvehicle want me to say more about my "everyone involved" statement?
--- jabba

 

[godless dave]

No, I've seen it demonstrated.

I've had this argument before, with others, elsewhere.

I think many people simply do not realise how burial shrouds were actually used in 1st century Palestine.

My understanding is that burial shrouds weren't used at all in 1st Century Palestine. Bodies were wrapped in strips of linen.

 

[Akri]

- Do I need to say anything more about my earlier claim that, "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective"?

Yes. Why else would people be asking you to elaborate?

- I meant that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective, in that they were not effectively blinded, and consequently did not preclude bias on the part of those involved.

Dating samples don't need to be blinded. There's a big difference between saying "the samples were not blinded" and saying "the samples were not effective". Everyone in this thread seems to agree that the samples weren't blinded. It just doesn't matter, as has been explained.

- I still think that at least many of the people involved were relevantly biased, and that their biases did affect the procedures.

How did you determine that they're biased, and how did their biases affect the testing? This is a serious allegation, so I suggest you either support it or admit you made a mistake.

I can try to support that claim -- or, I can get on with trying to support my claim that patching was apparently involved.

Here's a novel idea: instead of asking us which of your claims you should support, just give us whatever evidence you have that hasn't already been discredited. Really, you don't need our permission.

 

[Giordano]

JabbaPapa,

1. The radiocarbon dating of any vegetable matter on the Shroud, even if accurate (which is not established) becomes absolutely irrelevant when compared to the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud itself (which was highly documented and rigorously confirmed). Isn't the shroud the object of interest? The vegetable matter could have come from anywhere. I wear my dad's watch which was made in 1932; does that make me at least 80 years old?

2. Even if there were very early references to Jesus's shroud (not established) then the radiocarbon dating simply states that the Shroud of Turin is not the shroud referenced. Maybe the church got the wrong one! There are historic references to Julius Caesar wearing a toga; does that suggest in any way that the bed sheet in my drawer with a 2012 receipt from Macy's is that toga?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Here's the referenced post


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.

I don't -- not at all.

The pollen (and now ground soil) evidence in question has exactly NOTHING to do with dating the Shroud -- but only something to do with testing a hypothesis concerning its geographical origin.

I suppose some discussion of this aspect of things is warranted.

I obviously cannot link to the soil analysis, as it is contained in a just-published book, the pertinent contents of which are unlikely to exist online.

A reasonably good description of the pollen analysis of this particular aspect of analyses seems to be found here :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm

Having diszcussed this elsewhere, I really have some tentative conclusions about this geographical attribution, rather than questions.

First -- pollen analysis is a tool of forensic science, used in criminal investigations -- it helps to determine crime scenes, and to link suspects with those scenes

Second -- it's not an exact science, there being no exhaustive database of every single combination of floral species for every single location in the world

Having said that, the floral analysis actually DOES support very strongly the geographical origin at Jerusalem of the Shroud.

It is VERY unlikely that this precise combination of floral species should exist in more than one location, and there is no report of any remains of other floral species foreign to this area existing on the Shroud.

What the analysis does NOT achieve is to prove this geographical origin -- because it is NOT impossible that this same combination of flora exists or existed elsewhere.

The analysis does NOT provide any information concerning dating.

The analysis is NEUTRAL as to the question of whether the Shroud is or is not a forgery (it is obviously possible for a forgery to be created in Jerusalem).

 

[John Jones]

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.

There are chemists and other scientists on this very thread who have actually done ¹⁴C dating, so be prepared for a rigorous interlocution if you make any claims about the science involved.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

???

Link provided in my earlier post.

"and you now own them since you supported them"

Actually, I hadn't -- I said that those analyses proved nothing at all.

As indeed, they don't. They merely prove that pollen analysis cannot falsify Jerusalem as the geographical location of origin.

 

[JabbaPapa]

There are chemists and other scientists on this very thread who have actually done ¹⁴C dating, so be prepared for a rigorous interlocution if you make any claims about the science involved.

I don't own the claims made by that scientist -- and I'm certainly not competent to defend his analyses.

But I'm always happy to learn.

I tend to post what I have questions about, ergo stuff that I'm not convinced about myself in the first place -- if that helps ?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Do I need to say anything more about my earlier claim that, "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective"?
- I meant that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective, in that they were not effectively blinded, and consequently did not preclude bias on the part of those involved.
- I still think that at least many of the people involved were relevantly biased, and that their biases did affect the procedures. I can try to support that claim -- or, I can get on with trying to support my claim that patching was apparently involved.

--- Jabba

Yes.

You have made an untenable, insulting, demoinstrably dishonest claim, to wit: "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective".

You have failed to demonstrate that anyone believes that control samples were not "effective"; much less anyone who understands how ¹⁴C dating actually works.

Several posters have explained the purpose of "blinding", and how it does not apply to testing the cloth.

Your claim is only one more in a long line of thrashing about hoping to have some excuse to cling to the hope that the cloth, is, after all, in spite of all evidence, the True Shroud^TM.

You should have the honesty and decency to either:

1. Demonstrate that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", or,

2. Withdraw your claim and apologize.

Consider an analogy: Suppose I were to say, [hypothetical] "Every shroudie out there knows that the cloth is a fake."[/hypothetical].
Further, suppose I were to say so on a shroudie site, where I was pretending to have a rational discussion...

 

[John Jones]

- Do I need to say anything more about my earlier claim that, "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective"?
I meant that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective, in that they were not effectively blinded, and consequently did not preclude bias on the part of those involved. I still think that at least many of the people involved were relevantly biased, and that their biases did affect the procedures. I can try to support that claim -- or, I can get on with trying to support my claim that patching was apparently involved.

--- Jabba

You should stick to supporting all your claims, or stop making them. At any rate, your excuses for not supporting them are getting tiresome.

The fact that they weren't blinded does not mean they were ineffective, and everybody involved with dating the shroud does not think they were ineffective.

This has been explained to you at least three times by three different people, and you keep ignoring the explanation. This is starting to smell of intellectual dishonesty.