Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

...

---

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.

Are you saying Mme Flury-Lemburg wasn't competent to detect any re-weaving in the TS?

 

[Dinwar]

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

We have linked to experts in reweaving techniques (meaning people who do this sort of thing professionally). Those experts repeatedly stated "These patches are not invisible" and "We use threads from the same cloth". These are not assumptions, but expert opinions. You expect us to reject it because sometimes you help your girlfriend out? Sorry, but no. When you convince the experts that reweaving creates invisible patches and uses new threads, come talk to us--and bring a copy of that conversation. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that there is no patch.

Furthermore, why the devil would they make an invisible repair in a corner of the thing, while they left gaping holes right next to the image? The concept makes no sense.

no specialist fabric analysts, in the contemporary 21st century meaning, were at hand in the 1980s to verify the nature of the test samples

The thing was carefully photographed. Should be easy to prove there was a patch.

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.

So your argument is that if we fail, after repeated analysis, to find ANY evidence in support of a hypothesis, at best we can only offer the idea that the hypothesis is wrong as a hypothesis?

Your view of science is as twisted and distorted by your desire to believe as Jabba's.

 

[Belz...]

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

Wait, wait. How do you blind a C14 test ?

 

[Belz...]

- Yes.

Then provide evidence for that, please.

Stop fooling around and show your work. Otherwise this is just speculation. I might just as well say that I believe you really are a Hutt based on your avatar, or that the sky is actually a bubble around the earth and that science has lied to us to hide that fact, for some unspecified reason. Evidence ? I'll provide it in about 40 years.

No, absence of evidence is not a reason to reach a conclusion just because you want to.

 

[wollery]

Wait, wait. How do you blind a C14 test ?

Poke its eyes out.

 

[Belz...]

- 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...

Wow, you really are slow.

- I doubt that there was any conspiracy involved

Of course you do. That's the only way to make sense of your accusations about the scientists involved in the testing. You WANT the shroud to be real. Think about that, Jabba. You NEED it to be true. Why is that ? Does your faith hinge on this cloth ?

 

[Belz...]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the image on the shroud faded in the last centuries ? You'd think it wouldn't if it weren't paint or something similar.

It's a damn shame that, knowing it's a fake, the church doesn't allow us to test the actual image.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Bahahahahahahahahaha.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yes. That.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Love you.

 

[John Jones]

That program The Face of Jesus is on the history channel now. It's about the shroud.

 

[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 before. A documentary it ain't. In the interest of fairness I'm watching it again now. Twenty minutes into it, I'm not impressed.

 

[Aepervius]

Wait, wait. How do you blind a C14 test ?

You take a sample of a known substance with known date which visually looks identical, and give both sample to the same lab to testing without sayign which is which. You can do the same with the resultings burnt gas too.

Usually not done in physic because there is usually no experimenter bias, you only read an instrument results. Unlike in medicine where there can be influence of experimenter onto patient and patient himself.

 

[Aepervius]

I've seen it before. A documentary it ain't. In the interest of fairness I'm watching it again now. Twenty minutes into it, I'm not impressed.

heck even as a foreigner i know the history channel turned to crap entertainment channel some times ago . I am not in the least surprised from your first impression of a shroud documentary on the fantasy history channel.

 

[catsmate]

Wait, wait. How do you blind a C14 test ?

Provide the sample along with others in the same form so that cannot be distinguished. The was done by the Oxford and Geneva labs.

 

[Olowkow]

I've seen it before. A documentary it ain't. In the interest of fairness I'm watching it again now. Twenty minutes into it, I'm not impressed.

Pretty goofy show. I wonder how many shroud believers also are anti-vaxers, anti Global Climate Change-ers, and generally anti science. It is not clear whether these guys on the "documentary" are consciously lying or just really inept. It all reminds me of ghost hunters', dowsers' and bigfooters' use of technology. It has a certain comedy value I guess.

 

[abaddon]

I was about to do an annotated Cliff notes of the thread just to bring up to date the litany of promises from both Jabba and Jabbapapa, who assure us they are busily searching for the links they are sure they have, yet currently cannot find, and was happily multiquoting, until I hit this:

Authenticity is irrelevant to this question.

Just says it all, really. 139 pages about authenticity? Nah, doesn't matter, not important.

Good grief.

 

[John Jones]

heck even as a foreigner i know the history channel turned to crap entertainment channel some times ago . I am not in the least surprised from your first impression of a shroud documentary on the fantasy history channel.

Good on ya. I have even complained to the History channel about the crap they present as 'history'. They're chasing the consumer bucks and aren't the least bit embarrassed to admit it.

 

[John Jones]

Pretty goofy show. I wonder how many shroud believers also are anti-vaxers, anti Global Climate Change-ers, and generally anti science. It is not clear whether these guys on the "documentary" are consciously lying or just really inept. It all reminds me of ghost hunters', dowsers' and bigfooters' use of technology. It has a certain comedy value I guess.

That's exactly correct. It's laughable. Anyone who cites the History Channel as supporting evidence is pathologically credulous.

 

[John Jones]

I was about to do an annotated Cliff notes of the thread just to bring up to date the litany of promises from both Jabba and Jabbapapa, who assure us they are busily searching for the links they are sure they have, yet currently cannot find, and was happily multiquoting, until I hit this:


Just says it all, really. 139 pages about authenticity? Nah, doesn't matter, not important.

Good grief.

Good catch. if "Authenticity is irrelevant to this question", what is the question or the point of discussion?

:facepalm:

 

[IanS]

You take a sample of a known substance with known date which visually looks identical, and give both sample to the same lab to testing without sayign which is which. You can do the same with the resultings burnt gas too.

Usually not done in physic because there is usually no experimenter bias, you only read an instrument results. Unlike in medicine where there can be influence of experimenter onto patient and patient himself.

Just on a practical point between the rest of us, although it may be of no interest to Jabba and JabbaPapa - in most research labs, the experimental equipment is operated by technicians or by post docs (sometimes by post grads), rather than by the senior profs or scientific head of the lab.

So in most spectroscopy and similar studies, it would be perfectly easy to give a range of sealed samples to the technician without the technician knowing which if any of those samples was of special interest. Ie, the technician would not necessarily know which sample was which (unless you told him/her) .. The sample would be run “blind” as far as the operator and the results were concerned.

I doubt if Ramsay or Hedges actually ran their C14 gear in the Oxford lab.