Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Giordano]

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.

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).

Again the key problem with claiming the shroud is The Shroud is the 14C dating. Anything else simply falls apart as evidence if the shroud is the wrong date.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.



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.

Do you understand the concept of special pleading?
The image is not distorted by wrapping.
Assume the "Shroud Slouch^TM; observe the position of your hands.

...not to mention, all of these have been dealt with on this thread.

Despite what others have said, you really might want to read the whole, tiresome thing.

 

[John Jones]

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

Yes.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

Absolutely correct -- nevertheless, there is such a thing as proof-of-concept.

The same scientists attempted, fairly exhaustively, to use a great number of variant techniques to reproduce the physical characteristics of the markings on the Shroud. Of them all, ultraviolet lasers was the only one that succeeded.

Their own ending paragraphs express their own frustrations at this result, by the way.

Not their scientific paper, but a good introduction to their broad approach :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...f-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/

Their paper is here :

opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdf

SHORT English résumé here :

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/scientists-suggest-turin-shroud-authentic.html

 

[edge]

The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.

I heard this today and looked up a link here....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...8/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

 

[Agatha]

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

Yes. Because you made the allegation that "everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective", and that still needs to be either evidenced, or withdrawn. Obfuscation and backtracking along the lines of 'by ineffective I meant that the samples weren't blinded' (when blinding is unnecessary in the protocol agreed by the labs and the Vatican) does nothing to support your allegation of what everyone involved thought, nor your suggestion that non-blinding rendered the sampling ineffective.

Now that the role of blinding in the carbon dating process has been explained (re-read Dinwar's and wollery's posts), do you plan to actually show some evidence that anyone involved in the collecting or testing of the samples actually believed, then or now, that the control samples were ineffective?

Now you seem to be making a further allegation that the scientists in three separate and independent laboratories (including the two where the final step in the dating process was blinded) are all biased towards a mediaeval date - or at least a non-1st century date - and that they all, independently and in two cases despite the blinding, happened to date the shroud to a similar time. This presupposes either a huge conspiracy, or an mind-bogglingly amazing coincidence. Further, for all we know, some of the scientists working at those three laboratories may well have bene Christians, and again for all we know may have been hoping for a first century date. Your proposed conspiracy is now stretching the bounds of credulity past breaking point.

The sidetrack into pollen is interesting, but I am sure that anyone here can come up with a feasible method whereby a piece of cloth which was stored with other religious artefacts and regularly handled over the last 700 odd years by faithful (even fanatic) religious adherents, could contain pollen samples or trace mineral elements which may have originated from Israel.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Again the key problem with claiming the shroud is The Shroud is the 14C dating

There are several inter-related problems, but that is the biggest one, yes.

Bad C¹⁴ datings have nevertheless been identified in the past.

I am NOT claiming that this is necessarily the case with the Shroud, but I do accept that the theory merits some examination.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

Second, the analysis states that the blood stains are not those that were on the body -- but those that ARE on the surface of the Shroud itself. It is TOTALLY UNSURPRISING that blood stains on a fabric from contact with wounds will not resemble blood stains on either a living body or a corpse.

 

[Agatha]

Loose wrappings causes short hair to grow long, fingers and arms to elongate, and blood to flow against gravity?

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

We're not discussing a contamination of Carbon -- it's a potential contamination of C¹⁴ isotopes specifically.

What is the Mass of C¹⁴ isotopes that would affect the Carbon dating by +1300 years relative to the Mass of the linen fragments in question, assuming that these fragments were 1950 years old ?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bad C¹⁴ datings have nevertheless been identified in the past.

But not ones tested by 3 different independent laboratories.

I am NOT claiming that this is necessarily the case with the Shroud, but I do accept that the theory merits some examination.

And if you can find any scientific examination of the possibility or probability of the dating being wrong, then feel free to post it here.

 

[Resume]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times -- you are assuming a priori that the Shroud must have been tightly wrapped around the corpse, rather than loosely -- except that the image on the Shroud belies this assumption. ergo the assumption is wrong.

As is the a priori assumption that the shroud was wrapped around a corpse at all.

 

[JabbaPapa]

- 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.

Hi Jabba

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

erm, I'm a little more circumspect than that -- I simply feel that the C¹⁴ dating is somewhat incompatible with some other sources of data, which naturally raises some questions.

For my part, I believe that there are two extremist attitudes towards the Shroud that I find to be unhelpful.

1) Those with a deep-set belief in its genuine nature tend to refuse any and all contrary evidence in an irrational manner

2) Those with a deep-set belief that it is a mediaeval forgery tend to refuse any and all contrary evidence in an irrational manner

---

As for the re-weaving, my ex-girlfriend specialised in costume analysis at the Courtauld in London, and I occasionally had to assist her as she is not a native English speaker, so that I am very aware that the discipline of fabric analysis is extremely sketchy at best.

I would be loathe to assume anything at all about mediaeval fabric restoration techniques.

One thing is certain though, from everything I've read on that particular sub-subject -- no specialist fabric analysts, in the contemporary 21st century meaning, were at hand in the 1980s to verify the nature of the test samples (mainly because the discipline was virtually non-existent at that time). Furthermore, certain fabric analysis techniques are intrusive, so that unless new analysis samples are ever provided, those analysts can provide little more than hypotheses based on superficial analysis mainly.

None of which PROVES anything, of course -- but that's neither one way, nor the other.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

I'm more liable to believe the word of someone having made an actual 3D reconstruction of the Shroud Man, and having seen an explanation of the methodology he used and its end results.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

I think I resent that insult.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

The Shroud of Turin IS a strip of linen ...

 

[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).

The dating of vegetable matter (remember : linen is a vegetable matter) contradicting the radiocarbon dating was not a radiocarbon dating.

I *WILL* try and re-locate the study.

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?

I have already pointed out myself that these early references are not confirmed.

 

[Akri]

The Shroud of Turin IS a strip of linen ...

Seems awful big to be described as a "strip". To me that indicates a long, narrow cloth.

Also, godless dave said "stripS of linen"--note the plural. More than one piece of cloth was used.

....and now I'm picturing Mummy!Jesus.....

 

[Belz...]

No, I've seen it demonstrated.

Impossible. You will have to provide evidence of this, because it's simply unfeasible. You do understand that you have to project a 3D object onto a 2D surface that is not flat, right ?

 

[Belz...]

- 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

We're not asking you to define what you meant by it, Jabba, and you know it. We're asking you to PROVE it. I realise that this may take you 30-40 more years.