Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[jond]

Slowvehicle,
- I think that you want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were totally ineffective -- not just ineffective in regard to the "blinded" aspect. Is that correct?
--- Rich

Jabba, this is just pathetic. It's really very simple: you made the claim (everyone involved accepted that the control samples were ineffective). No one on this forum* believes this claim to be factual. Everyone is telling you to back up this claim with evidence. Period. Stop behaving like an idiot, and either back up the claim or retract it.

*(with the possible exception of JabbaPapa)

 

[Jabba]

When you made the allegation, did you mean totally ineffective?

If you meant everyone involved accepted that the control samples were totally ineffective, substantiate that.

If you didn't mean totally ineffective, substantiate what you did say.

All this quibbling and restating is just wasting the time in which you could substantiate the allegation that YOU made in the first place.

You said it, it's your burden of proof.

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.
- I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias -- which is what the "blinding" is designed to do, and what Pixels was referring to in 5131 that I responded to in 5138 with the thing about everyone involved accepts that the control samples were ineffective.
- I thought that I did substantiate that with the quote from the "Nature" article and the references to Gove's book (for which I would provide quotes as soon as possible).
- I think that slowvehicle had assumed, at first, that I meant totally ineffective and was objecting to the breadth of my claim...
- Hope that's coherent.

--- jabba

 

[jond]

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.
- I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias -- which is what the "blinding" is designed to do, and what Pixels was referring to in 5131 that I responded to in 5138 with the thing about everyone involved accepts that the control samples were ineffective.
- I thought that I did substantiate that with the quote from the "Nature" article and the references to Gove's book (for which I would provide quotes as soon as possible).
- I think that slowvehicle had assumed, at first, that I meant totally ineffective and was objecting to the breadth of my claim...
- Hope that's coherent.

--- jabba

Have you read Dinwar and Wollery's post explaining how wrong you are about this?

 

[IanS]

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.
- I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias --

jabba

So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?

And that because the experiments were not done entirely "blind", we must accept the realistic possibility that all three labs reported biased results saying the shroud was 14th century instead of 1st century?

Did the three labs agree on their bias before hand? Or was it just a coincidence that their dates agreed?

 

[Jabba]

Have you read Dinwar and Wollery's post explaining how wrong you are about this?

jond,
- I don't think that they claimed that the "blinding" part was effective -- or, that not everyone involved accepted that the blinding part was ineffective.
- Can you give me the post #'s to which you're referring?
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

<much snippage>

Your homework:
1. How much modern contamination would be necessary to alter the result of dating a first century cloth to the thirteenth century? Show your work.
2. What is the mechanism for the introduction of this contamination?
3. How did this contamination survive the decontamination pretreatment used by the three labs? In detail please.
4. What are the sources for your claim that: " a parallel dating was made using vegetable fragments that are present on the Shroud". Include the provenance of the material, chain of custody (at least to the same standard as the radiocarbon dating), nature of the testing (including by whom performed, where and how), detailed results. I assume this dating was properly peer reviewed and published in a reputable and relevant journal such as Radiocarbon? Ray Rogers garbage isn't sufficient.
5. With regard to your claim that "a separate group of fabric experts has proposed that a completely different restoration technique than the "french reweaving" existed in the Middle Ages" please supply details as to these alleged experts and their supposed technique. Include how this technique can't be detected even with high magnification microscopy under non-visible spectrum illumination.
Also supply examples of the technique for comparison. You may also speculate as to why there are no records of the repairs, unlike the more visible ones.
6. With regard to your claim that "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" please supply details, including who carried out the tests, the methodology, results and where it was published. Also provide a reasonable chain of events that could have caused the shroud image to be produced in this way in the first century BC. No magic god radiation please.
7. With regard to your claim that "there are some literary and iconographic early mediaeval sources EARLIER than the terminus ante quem of the radiocarbon dating" provide these sources and justify why they are evidence for the shroud's existence prior to ~1355CE.

Then why put those ideas on the table?

Desperation. There is no genuine evidence that the shroud is anything other than another medieval fake relic but that doesn't suit the beliefs of some god botherers, hence the denial and lying.

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

Untrue.

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.

This claim has already been dealt with and shown to be rubbish. Nearly as bad as the images of coins on the eyes crap.

- 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.

Oh stop the lying. You tried to smear those who carried out the radiocarbon testing and your pathetic attempt was demonstrated to be nonsense.
I've explained the blinding process in great detail.

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.

Rubbish. As has already been dealt with in this thread the shroud image is the result of painting and has been duplicated using medieval techniques. Several times.

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

Alas for the desperate god botherers the shroud is a medieval artifact.


Now, to reiterate:

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radiocarbon), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:

Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure
Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)
Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355
Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue

Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

 

[Humots]

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.
- I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias -- which is what the "blinding" is designed to do, and what Pixels was referring to in 5131 that I responded to in 5138 with the thing about everyone involved accepts that the control samples were ineffective.
- I thought that I did substantiate that with the quote from the "Nature" article and the references to Gove's book (for which I would provide quotes as soon as possible).
- I think that slowvehicle had assumed, at first, that I meant totally ineffective and was objecting to the breadth of my claim...
- Hope that's coherent.

--- jabba

Word games, Jabba. When you said that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were ineffective, the clear meaning is "ineffective for their intended purpose in performing the carbon dating", that is, totally ineffective.

You assumed that the purpose of the controls was only to prevent "blinding". When you found out about controls used for calibration, you suddenly modified your claim.

And your claim is still invalid, since as has been clearly explained, your initial belief about "blinding" is incorrect. Your lack of knowledge on carbon dating is showing again.

I had a relative like that. He was always making some strange claim, like "Politicians get to keep any donated funds for themselves after an election is over". When I provided proof that this was not so, he said "I was talking about Federal elections."

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.
- I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias -- which is what the "blinding" is designed to do, and what Pixels was referring to in 5131 that I responded to in 5138 with the thing about everyone involved accepts that the control samples were ineffective.
- I thought that I did substantiate that with the quote from the "Nature" article and the references to Gove's book (for which I would provide quotes as soon as possible).
- I think that slowvehicle had assumed, at first, that I meant totally ineffective and was objecting to the breadth of my claim...
- Hope that's coherent.

--- jabba

Relatively coherent, but in no way substantiating your allegation.

You said that "everybody involved believed that the control samples were ineffective".

The control samples were effective in that they were designed to confirm the accuracy of the dating process, and they did just that.

Now, to substantiate your allegation, you need to show that not just one person who was:

a) involved in the sampling process AND
b) contends that the control samples were ineffective,

but that everyone involved in the sampling process holds (b) to be true.

Whether you meant that the control samples were all ineffective in the way that the control samples were meant to work, or ineffective in the way that some people who are ignorant of the C14 thought they ought to have worked (ie blinding), is a quibble that you need to resolve. But you need to substantiate your allegation, and if you cannot do that then you need to apologise and withdraw that allegation.

It is my hope that along the way, you'll understand that the control samples were not intended to 'blind' the process, but that two of the labs did make that extra check of blinding the processed samples part way through the process, precisely to prevent the sort of vague allegations of bias which you have been making.

jond,
- I don't think that they claimed that the "blinding" part was effective -- or, that not everyone involved accepted that the blinding part was ineffective.
- Can you give me the post #'s to which you're referring?
--- Jabba

The control samples were never intended to blind the testing. Blinding was not part of the agreed protocol at that stage. That is what you have failed to understand. If you go back and read Dinwar's post #5290 and wollery's post #5293 (clicky links to make it easy for you) then you'll be able to understand the purpose of control samples in scientific testing where subjectivity is not part of the tests.

Now, do you need more links or explanations (which surely you should have been aware of before you made that charge of ineffectiveness), or can you either substantiate or withdraw your allegation that everyone involved agrees that the control samples were ineffective?

 

[jond]

jond,
- I don't think that they claimed that the "blinding" part was effective -- or, that not everyone involved accepted that the blinding part was ineffective.
- Can you give me the post #'s to which you're referring?
--- Jabba

5290 and 5293

 

[Jabba]

Ian,
- See below.

So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?

- Yes.

And that because the experiments were not done entirely "blind", we must accept the realistic possibility that all three labs reported biased results saying the shroud was 14th century instead of 1st century?

- I wouldn't say it quite like that...
- It will take me some time to figure out how I would say it. I'll get back to you on that...

Did the three labs agree on their bias before hand? Or was it just a coincidence that their dates agreed?

- I doubt that there was any conspiracy involved; but then, I doubt that it was just coincidence either. I don't think that this is a case of excluded middle. I'll have to get back to you on this also.

--- Jabba

 

[Agatha]

Do you know for a fact that none of these scientists 'wanted' a 1st century date? Do you know for a fact that none of them were Christians? How do you account for the fact that at two of the labs, the last stage of the dating process was done blind vis-à-vis the control and the shroud sample?

The thing about science, Jabba, is that the evidence comes first. Scientists can be biased all they like, they can want or expect particular results, but the process of science (and in this case, the C14 dating) is designed to remove that bias so that the evidence is what it is. Objective, not subjective, and not affected by any bias (in any direction) held by the people performing the tests.

As you seem to be entirely ignorant of the process of carbon dating, you are treading on very dangerous ground in alleging that any bias amongst the scientists had any effect on the results.

 

[catsmate]

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

Bad C¹⁴ datings have nevertheless been identified in the past.

State one example of radiocarbon dating carried out to the standard of that of the shroud being inaccurate to the level needed to introduce a ~1300 year error or accept that your assertion was nothing more that innuendo.

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 ?

Well?

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

Correct. It is not a Jewish burial cloth. It doesn't match either the biblical description or Jewish practices.
It's a fake.

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

Cite some peer-reviewed paper and people might take your assertions seriously. Entertainment TV doesn't cut it.

I simply feel that the C¹⁴ dating is somewhat incompatible with some other sources of data, which naturally raises some questions.

Blatantly untrue.

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

What "evidence" is this? Anything claimed by shroudies falls apart when examined.

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.

Really? So the textile experts who examined the shroud on multiple occasions, using microscopy, micro-photography and multi-spectral illumination all got it wrong?
You're headed into the conspiracy zone.

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

So you're claiming that a magic invisible repair technique might exist so the radiocarbon dating (and other data) should be abandoned?
The shroud might have been woven by invisible sky pixies you know.......

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.

Crap. The shroud cloth was examined in 2002, when the backing cloth was removed. No sign of patching, in fact the experts specifically dismissed this suggestion (and I quoted previously). In addition >6,000 micro-photographs of the shroud were taken during earlier testing. None show signs of magic patching.

 

[catsmate]

Do you know for a fact that none of these scientists 'wanted' a 1st century date? Do you know for a fact that none of them were Christians? How do you account for the fact that at two of the labs, the last stage of the dating process was done blind vis-à-vis the control and the shroud sample?

Actually Jabba/Rich would know, if he'd bothered to actually study the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, that several of those involved believed the shroud was a first century artifact and were surprised by the result.
They accepted reality however, when it was proven to be a medieval artifact.

 

[jond]

And speaking of open minds, Jabba: what would it take to convince you that shroud is not authentic? Scientific facts certainly don't convince you. So how open minded are you, really? From everything you've posted here, so fa, it is clear that you are not remotely open minded. Meanwhile, all of your "opponents" have told you exactly what sort of evidence they would require to change their minds.

 

[anduin]

http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/image35.png

(the evidence of wounding is pretty horrendous)

As it has been pointed out repeatedly, the arms are wrong. Try it yourself, lying down with the arms resting flat on the bed or any other flat surface, and leaving them to your side until the end of your ribs, it is impossible to get to cover your crotch in the same manner depicted. They do not reach, you have to lift your arms to be able to reach that far and place the hands in the same position that is depicted.

The only way this position is possible in the shroud is that one arm is considerably shorter than the other.

 

[Agatha]

Actually Jabba/Rich would know, if he'd bothered to actually study the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, that several of those involved believed the shroud was a first century artifact and were surprised by the result.
They accepted reality however, when it was proven to be a medieval artifact.

Thank you, catsmate1. I was unaware of that, and would have researched it at a later date had Jabba pursued the suggestion of bias, but now don't need to. That really does cut the allegation of bias off at the knees.

 

[IanS]

So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?

- Yes.

The C14 scientists were all internationally known for decades before the C14 dating. Scientists at that level travel all over Europe, Asia, America, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Africa, South America etc., presenting their latest research results. They had all dated hundreds of historic artefacts before dating the shroud. Why do you think people like that would be biased against any particular religious relic?

Second problem - when you publish a paper in any mainstream research journal, there can be no hint of any bias or lack of objectivity shown, otherwise your paper will be rejected and returned to you with a note from the reviewers and the editor telling you to remove anything remotely like that ...

... IOW, you simply cannot get stuff like the C14 published if there is any hint of something like "bias" shown.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Even if a biased paper somehow got through without the reviewers or the editor noticing (since Jabba claims no conspiracy) then the moment it was published dozens of scientists would write in ripping it apart.

 

[Monza]

Word games, Jabba. When you said that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were ineffective, the clear meaning is "ineffective for their intended purpose in performing the carbon dating", that is, totally ineffective.

You assumed that the purpose of the controls was only to prevent "blinding". When you found out about controls used for calibration, you suddenly modified your claim.

And your claim is still invalid, since as has been clearly explained, your initial belief about "blinding" is incorrect. Your lack of knowledge on carbon dating is showing again.

This.

Essentially Jabba claimed that the controls were ineffective for a purpose for which they were not intended. As it turns out, they were very effective for the purpose for which they were intended.

I'm looking at an object on my desk right now. It's made of wood, has a cylinder of graphite embedded in the middle, and a piece of rubber on the end. It is totally ineffective as means to provide nutritional sustenance to me when I get hungry. So why do I keep such an ineffective object around? Because it is extremely effective for documenting ideas on paper, which is what I intend to use it for.

Bottom line. Jabba's comment, though I'm willing to believe was without malice, was incorrect and he should acknowledge as such.

 

[John Jones]

This is not an a priori assumption -- it is a conclusion based on biological remains on the surface of the Shroud.

No.

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens