Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[anduin]

Here's the History Channel episode JabbaPappa is referencing.



The part in question begins around 45 minutes in. I'm watching it now, and wondering why they aren't testing their idea by just painting their Jesus head statue and putting a cloth over it.

I watched the relevant section about the 3D modelling, and the entire process was completely unscientific. These people are a graphics studio, not scientists by any measure, so their evidence is suspect from the start.

However, I looked in detail at their techniques used to produce their result, and it is extremely clear that their result is deeply flawed to say the least. The problem is that they were working on the assumption that there was a real 3D face there from the start, and worked backwards to retrofit the actual image so that they could to create 3D model. It is the old trick of shooting an arrow and painting the bullseye around it after it has hit a surface.

The most telling part for me is between minutes 45-47, where it was clear that they were not getting the desired information out of the image. In short, the Shroud clearly is more of a 2D representation than an accurate 3D one, this is evidenced from the lack of distortion expected from an image that has been created from transfer of a 3D object. They actually had to create their own distortion by using the parameters of a real sculpture to measure where things SHOULD go, not where they actually were.

I cannot find the link, but the best explanation of how the Shroud was created was by someone who did not use a dead body or a sculpture as the source, but used a bass relief, which explains some of the gaps in the image and the lack of distortion better than anything I have yet seen. I'll try to find the video.

 

[John Jones]

I've seen this analytical fallacy multiple times [...]

This is a learning experience for me. What is an analytical fallacy?

 

[pakeha]

- 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.

"Semi-invisible", Jabba?
Have you written to Mme. Flury-Lemburg about this possibility?

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. ...

Well, Jabbapapa, once you've established a chain of custody, it could be a mildly interesting discussion point.
Especially since the medieval dating has been established.

...The dating is HARDLY the most interesting thing about the Shroud, IMO

Once the medieval dating is acknowledged, of course you're right.

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

Yes.

 

[John Jones]

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.

I've seen it. The History Channel is a joke. They still present Erik Von Daniken as a serious source of history.

You are not going to enjoy your stay here if you can't provide better sources than what you have done so far.

There are a lot of very intelligent and well-educated people at JREF. In all likelihood, they've already read and seen everything you have, and have the background to discuss it intelligently.

Allow me to offer a belated welcome.

 

[wollery]

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.

Blinding only precludes bias in subjective measurements.

14C dating is an objective measurement, so blinding the samples is utterly irrelevant. The only way for experimenter bias to impact the result is for someone to lie about the numbers that a machine produces.

This means that you are accusing several scientists with impeccable research records of intentionally falsifying data.

You are accusing them of fraud.

Is that what you really want to do?

Before you answer that please read these three posts;
The controls that are used in 14C dating.
Another example of unblinded controls in science.
An explanation of what blinding is actually used for and where it is needed.

You have actual scientists taking the time to explain stuff to you, it would behoove you to pay attention to what they have to say.

 

[John Jones]

Why is this a "sidetrack" -- is this thread about the radiocarbon dating exclusively ???

Otherwise, your scenario strikes me as being farfetched and unlikely.

The fact of the matter is that the ¹⁴C dating trumps all other evidence for a first century relic. When you have read this thread you will understand this point.

But feel free to present your belief regardless how lame your supporting evidence. Jabba does this regularly too.

 

[Dinwar]

- 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...

This reveals the depths of your dishonesty, Jabba. You're trying to find a way to say something everyone, including you, know is a lie, in a way that makes it not a lie. That's pretty much the definition of a dishonest statement.

I meant ineffective in regard to precluding bias -- which is what the "blinding" is designed to do,

No. We already explained to you: this is an objective test, one in which bias (at least, of the type you're discussing) simply does not matter. I can be as biased as you want; the reactor simply will not care.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

"Four different people who have worked in labs and taken samples, but they're irrelevant. Numerous books, including multiple textbooks on the subject, have been mentioned, but they're obviously not important. The History Channel had a TV show on it, and trumps everything!!!!"

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,
- No -- I didn't mean totally ineffective.


--- jabba

Stop with the weasel-wording. You said everyone involved agreed the controls were ineffective. I'm about to bite the blood out of my lip to avoid saying what I really think of your opinions.

You know what? Don't bother replying. I won't see it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Here I am saving JabbaPapa's bacon with my favorite shroud video. Here's how it happened in real life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg

at 1:10

I posted this on the first page (!) of this thread, but I love it so much that I'll take any opportunity to post it again.

Ward

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

I asked this the other night: any discussion of bias begs the question, "bias toward what?"

What reason is there to think that those who did the measurements were biased toward one date or the other? Other than they got an answer that jabba didn't like, I mean

 

[catsmate]

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.

Yeah, it's (not really) surprising how many of Jabba/Rich's claims fall apart under examination.

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.

Oh hell yes. Non-scientists just don't understand how competitive the academic world is; reputations are made tearing apart previously held shibboleths.

 

[Lucian]

Behold! The Shroud of Chippewa Falls! The Shroud was draped lightly over subject's face. Although the Shroud of Chippewa Falls is currently on display in a laundry basket in Wisconsin, a scientific paper has shown that there are traces of pollen from the Lost City of Atlanta.

 

[Monza]

I asked this the other night: any discussion of bias begs the question, "bias toward what?"

What reason is there to think that those who did the measurements were biased toward one date or the other? Other than they got an answer that jabba didn't like, I mean

That's what Jabba is trying really hard not to say. He doesn't like the answer that was arrived at, so blames the people at the testing labs of some undefined "bias".

 

[Craig B]

The best one I heard was that the Resurrection Event changed the structure of the shroud thereby throwing off the carbon dating.

ETA: Iron clad proof would be if they took a fleck of 'blood' and cloned Jesus.

Been thought of by a gang of humorists. See http://web.archive.org/web/20030821065455/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/page2.htm and the indignant reactions at http://web.archive.org/web/20011221050417/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/bestof.htm

If the Shroud's carbon date has been messed about with by God, suppose advanced space aliens had come and run a test in for example 1600. Would they have found that the cloth had been woven in the future? And if you did clone somebody, how would you know it was Jesus? The "clonee" might claim to be Dolly the sheep, for all I know.

 

[Garrette]

Been thought of by a gang of humorists. See http://web.archive.org/web/20030821065455/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/page2.htm and the indignant reactions at http://web.archive.org/web/20011221050417/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/bestof.htm

If the Shroud's carbon date has been messed about with by God, suppose advanced space aliens had come and run a test in for example 1600. Would they have found that the cloth had been woven in the future? And if you did clone somebody, how would you know it was Jesus? The "clonee" might claim to be Dolly the sheep, for all I know.

Such desperate ignorance as us found in that second link has rarely been witnessed.

 

[Craig B]

Such desperate ignorance as us found in that second link has rarely been witnessed.

Alas it may be more common than most people suppose. But at least one of the comments had some merit, if only its humorousness.

The shroud is a fake. Just give a Catholic communion, give it some time to transubstantiate, and pump their stomach. You could get all the Jesus DNA you need.

 

[The Norseman]

Behold! The Shroud of Chippewa Falls! The Shroud was draped lightly over subject's face. Although the Shroud of Chippewa Falls is currently on display in a laundry basket in Wisconsin, a scientific paper has shown that there are traces of pollen from the Lost City of Atlanta.

Wow! That looks just like you!

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

No. I would like you to own the fact that you have made an untrue claim in hopes of bolstering your position. You have yet to demonstrate that ANYONE "involved" "accepts" that the control samples were "ineffective". the control samples, even without the extra blinding performed by two of the labs, did exactly what they were supposed to do--demonstrated that the procedures were performed accurately and dependably.

You want to pretend that the lack of blinding (blinding which is not standard procedure for ¹⁴C dating), somehow indicates that all three labs were either dishonest, incompetent, or both--and you worded your claim in such a way as to make it seem that you have evidence that "everyone involved" is complicit in your accusations.

If what you mean is that the control samples were not blinded, say so--and apologize for pretending that "everyone involved" is part of a vast conspiracy to pretend that the ¹⁴ dates were improperly, dishonestly, or carelessly reached.

The control samples were not "ineffective".

Spin-doctoring your claim does not help your cause.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- See below.

- Yes.

Upon what, sir, do you base this scurrilous claim?

Are you actually saying that you believe that ALL THREE labs suffered the SAME bias, and that ALL THREE labs decided to lie about the results of their testing?

You are not helping your case, at all...

- 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...

...but that is precisely what you are, in fact, saying.

- 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

So, not dishonest, and no conspiracy, but not coincidence...what's left?

Do you really think a charge of massive incompetence makes your earlier accusation all better?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Behold! The Shroud of Chippewa Falls! The Shroud was draped lightly over subject's face. Although the Shroud of Chippewa Falls is currently on display in a laundry basket in Wisconsin, a scientific paper has shown that there are traces of pollen from the Lost City of Atlanta.

..I have a new hero...