Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akri]

FWIW, I've found one paper from the scientist who did the alternative dating.

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

It's NOT the paper where he provides the dating, but it does provide his chemical analyses suggesting that the samples used in the carbon dating were chemically dissimilar to the general body of the artefact.

He does mention some of his reasons for disputing the dating of the Shroud in his paper, but this is not where he provides the alternative dating that I've mentioned.

I do NOT understand any of the Chemistry, nor do I pretend so -- but at least I've remembered now that it is the age of the vanillin that is referred to in his dating.

I'm on the trail of it now anyway, and hopefully will be able to link you to the paper in question in the fairly near future.

Do a thread search for "Rogers"--you'll find that he's been covered quite extensively already (and the results are not favorable to the pro-authenticity side).

 

[JabbaPapa]

I said "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."

Since the appearance of the wounds is what lends credence to the shroud you would seem to have debunked the shroud.

????

I'm not sure that you understand the nature of the blood stains relative to the image on the Shroud.

For whatever reason, where the linen was originally stained with blood, the image is non-existent -- there's just bare linen instead.

There are also, concurrently, wounds visible on the body of the Shroud Man.

There are also, concurrently, traces of crystallised hemoglobin in the weave of the fabric itself.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The human body is much more cylindrical than flat.

sigh, I think I'll just drop my side of this utterly pointless side discussion, as a waste of anyone's time.

Why would a 1st-century itinerant preacher wear his hair in a style from 1100 years later?

This really has me puzzled though --- a "hair style" ??? Are you joking ???

This is quite clearly someone who has simply let his hair and beard grow out ; the only evidence of "styling" is some trimming of the beard and his fringe.

Is there some magical reason why it was impossible for men to have hair and beard grown out in that manner prior to the 1200s ?????????

Is there some reason why my own hair and beard, which are similarly grown out, might be "anachronistic" to the 21st century ???????? Am I too, a 14th century forgery ??????????

 

[JabbaPapa]

No one on this forum* believes this claim to be factual.

*(with the possible exception of JabbaPapa)

Please don't be snide, all that it achieves is to weaken your own arguments.

 

[Garrette]

I said "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."



????

I'm not sure that you understand the nature of the blood stains relative to the image on the Shroud.

With respect, I think that description falls more accurately to you. Others here have followed the thread more closely and indexed the information more carefully, but I will give it a quick go.

For whatever reason, where the linen was originally stained with blood,

No. Where the cloth has been made to look as if stained with blood. It is far, far, far, from demonstrated that there was any blood-staining.

the image is non-existent -- there's just bare linen instead.

Okay.

There are also, concurrently, wounds visible on the body of the Shroud Man.

There are also, (concurrently, if we must) wounds that overlap the edge of the shroud man, indicated forgery, i.e., the flogging marks.

There are also, concurrently, traces of crystallised hemoglobin in the weave of the fabric itself.

No. Assuming Adler is to be believed, the best that can be said is that he demosntrated the presence of porphyrins which, while a component of blood, is also a component of non-blood stuff, such as might be used in items to forge an image.

 

[AdMan]

This really has me puzzled though --- a "hair style" ??? Are you joking ???

This is quite clearly someone who has simply let his hair and beard grow out ; the only evidence of "styling" is some trimming of the beard and his fringe.

Is there some magical reason why it was impossible for men to have hair and beard grown out in that manner prior to the 1200s ?????????

Is there some reason why my own hair and beard, which are similarly grown out, might be "anachronistic" to the 21st century ???????? Am I too, a 14th century forgery ??????????

If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

1 Corinthians 11:14

And if Jesus had long hair, so did his apostles. Else, why did Judas have to point him out?

Disgraceful bunch of hippies (except maybe for Paul).

 

[Garrette]

sigh, I think I'll just drop my side of this utterly pointless side discussion, as a waste of anyone's time.



This really has me puzzled though --- a "hair style" ??? Are you joking ???

This is quite clearly someone who has simply let his hair and beard grow out ; the only evidence of "styling" is some trimming of the beard and his fringe.

Is there some magical reason why it was impossible for men to have hair and beard grown out in that manner prior to the 1200s ?????????

Is there some reason why my own hair and beard, which are similarly grown out, might be "anachronistic" to the 21st century ???????? Am I too, a 14th century forgery ??????????

Slowvehicles's main point, as has been made clear more than once, isn't really the hair style itself; that's just an add-on to the real point, i.e., that the hair is on the shroud as if the man were standing when the image was made. In other words, it hands down from the top of the head toward the shoulders as opposed to hanging down to the slab on which he was supposedly lying. The blood flow issue has the same objection: besides flowing along the hair (something which real flowing blood does not do), it flows down to the shoulders instead of down to the slab.

These are not minor points.

 

[zooterkin]

Please don't be snide, all that it achieves is to weaken your own arguments.

It doesn't. But at least he has arguments that could be weakened.

 

[pakeha]

- While I was referring specifically to the blinding aspect of the control samples as being ineffective, I have to admit that I don't know how the control samples were otherwise effective -- I doubt that they would be used to test the accuracy of the labs doing the testing...
--- Jabba

Oh, myyy!

FWIW, I've found one paper from the scientist who did the alternative dating.

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

It's NOT the paper where he provides the dating, but it does provide his chemical analyses suggesting that the samples used in the carbon dating were chemically dissimilar to the general body of the artefact.

He does mention some of his reasons for disputing the dating of the Shroud in his paper, but this is not where he provides the alternative dating that I've mentioned.

I do NOT understand any of the Chemistry, nor do I pretend so -- but at least I've remembered now that it is the age of the vanillin that is referred to in his dating.

I'm on the trail of it now anyway, and hopefully will be able to link you to the paper in question in the fairly near future.

You'll find the links to those papers in this very thread.
Not only the papers, but pages of discussion to boot.

...This really has me puzzled though --- a "hair style" ??? Are you joking ???

This is quite clearly someone who has simply let his hair and beard grow out ; the only evidence of "styling" is some trimming of the beard and his fringe.

Is there some magical reason why it was impossible for men to have hair and beard grown out in that manner prior to the 1200s ?????????

Is there some reason why my own hair and beard, which are similarly grown out, might be "anachronistic" to the 21st century ???????? Am I too, a 14th century forgery ??????????

Please don't be snide, all that it achieves is to weaken your own arguments.

I suggest you follow your own advice, Jabbapapa.

 

[wollery]

- While I was referring specifically to the blinding aspect of the control samples as being ineffective

Dinwar and I have both explained why blinding is utterly unnecessary when taking objective measurements such as 14C dating, and I am personally insulted that you have neither responded to, nor apparently read, the posts in question, particularly as several posters have pointed you to them subsequently.

I have to admit that I don't know how the control samples were otherwise effective

Then what value does you opinion have?

I doubt that they would be used to test the accuracy of the labs doing the testing...

They weren't used to test the accuracy of the labs. They were used to test the accuracy of the machines and processes that were used by the labs.

You opinion is, as you freely admit, based on a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, which renders your thoughts and opinions on the 14C dating utterly irrelevant and the time spent posting them completely wasted.

Perhaps if you were to take the time and effort to become at least a little acquainted with science your opinions on such subjects might be worth considering for more than a femtosecond.

 

[Belz...]

It's NOT the paper where he provides the dating, but it does provide his chemical analyses suggesting that the samples used in the carbon dating were chemically dissimilar to the general body of the artefact.

Either the shroud was assembled in a factory from different cloths, seemingly just to throw us off, and despite the fact that no patching is visible, or there are some people who desperately need the shroud to be authentic, and I'd like to know why, since nothing in the christian faith seems to hinge on it.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure that you understand the nature of the blood stains relative to the image on the Shroud.

Well one thing that I do understand, however, and as discussed in this thread, is that the presence or absence of blood on the cloth has no bearing whatsoever to its authenticity so long as the C14 dating stands.

 

[Belz...]

Dinwar and I have both explained why blinding is utterly unnecessary when taking objective measurements such as 14C dating, and I am personally insulted that you have neither responded to, nor apparently read, the posts in question, particularly as several posters have pointed you to them subsequently.

Here, let me help:

JABBA, have you read the posts explaining to you why blinding is irrelevant in this case ?

 

[Dinwar]

Please don't be snide, all that it achieves is to weaken your own arguments.

Well, considering your posting history, your arguments are about as strong as a day-old kitten at this point.

I'm not going to bother with you until you demonstrate that you've read and understood this thread up to this point. I normally wouldn't expect that, but you're particularly obnoxious in your insistance that we haven't addressed these issues, and we've discussed them to death. I don't feel like repeating arguments that you could see simply by going back a few pages. The issues you raise have already been addressed, repeatedly. The fact that you think you're bringing up new information is a clear indicator that you don't know what you're talking about.

I kind of went off in my response up above, but I think it can be summarized in the following: why does Jabba think anyone gives a hoot what he "doubts"?

Simple. After a year and over a hundred pages of discussion, Jabba has nothing left. JabbaPappa is going to quickly come to the same situation. Neither can doubt the authenticity of the shroud--it's their god, the foundation of their belief, and it'd be blasphemy to deny it--so they pretend there's scientific doubt. When it becomes obvious there isn't, they simply prey on the mistaken notion that all doubts are reasonable. Jabba is almost an archetype for someone defending an a priori assumption

 

[JabbaPapa]

Your homework:

Right -- so not pedantic, nor supercilious, nor arrogant at all, are we ?

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.

Carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere.

Quantitatively, the amounts of C14 that would induce a false dating would be infinitesimal.

I have NO IDEA what such a source of C14 might be, though the two obvious ones would be a spike in atmospheric C14, whether local or global, in the year that the linen was grown and harvested, or C14 being a by-product of whatever created the image in the first place.

You seem to be (falsely) assuming that I have theories about this, whereas in fact I only have questions, nor do I **assume** that the carbon dating is necessarily wrong, as you seem to have (falsely) inferred.

Nevertheless, some researchers have claimed that cotton is found in the samples that were taken in 1988, whereas cotton is not found in the main body of the fabric.

(oh, and please don't try the "infinite recursion" trick with me, of simply sitting behind your computer and asking me to substantiate every single word that I use ad infinitum -- it is a destructive rhetorical trick, that is dishonest, leads exactly nowhere, and I will not put up with it.

There's always the possibility that YOU could do your homework)

2. What is the mechanism for the introduction of this contamination?

See above -- as concerns patching, reweaving, or biological contamination, I am keeping an open mind on all three questions, but I am a proponent of none of them, contrary to your beliefs otherwise.

Mould. Rot.

3. How did this contamination survive the decontamination pretreatment used by the three labs? In detail please.

I would personally assume that any C14 contamination -- IF it existed -- would have to be a contamination of the linen & cotton weave itself.

Though I do have to add that there is an arguable possibility, given that truly competent fabric analysts exist in very small numbers (it is an extremely difficult and extremely poorly paid field of research), and it is a discipline that is in its infancy -- so that it cannot be ruled out that the scientific team in the 1980s made mistakes in their analyses of the fabric.

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.

"Ray Rogers garbage"

I am fully aware of the nature of the politicised rejection of his research -- he himself IIRC has mitigated his findings as requiring further research and peer review.

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.

See here for a treatment of this question :

www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf

(or I suppose that you could just dismiss it instead, a priori, as not being coherent with your personal views on the question -- up to you, but if you decide to simply dismiss any and all evidence contrary to the radiocarbon dating out of hand, then please don't bother asking for any more of it, as this would simply constitute an unproductive waste of my time, and you cannot expect me to waste my time just for your own entertainment)

Can you please provide evidence that "high magnification microscopy under non-visible spectrum illumination" has been used for the purposes of fabric analysis, and that this work has been properly peer-reviewed and correctly supervised by multiple experts in fabric analysis, and furthermore that this microscopy has been performed at multiple points of the Shroud fabric, in the same lab conditions, and that a full comparative microscopic study of all of these points of fabric study of the artefact have been collated, reviewed, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or similar serious publication ?

Can you please provide a detailed summary of the conclusions of such a study ?

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.

Already provided upthread -- NO I will not translate it into English for your personal convenience.

I was asked to provide the paper --- I did, it's in Italian.

Not my problem if you can't read it.

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.

I have already provided my answer to the question "why ?" -- did you neglect to read it ?

An examination of the early Shroud references is found HERE :

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/scavone.pdf

It is IMO a fairly objective examination, though you may be unfamiliar with the methodology that is habitual in this sort of research, and so might wrongfully conclude otherwise.

It is clear that the most solid pre-14th century testimonial, the 1203 one, cannot be considered as being "confirmed", as I pointed out myself concerning all of these earlier sources (though you seem to think, for some strange reason, that I have positively claimed their 100% reliability --- whatever)

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.

The blanket refusal of some people to outright reject anything and everything that casts any kind of doubt on the dating provided by the radiocarbon tests is just as irrational, notwithstanding the FACT that radiocarbon dating is less than 100% reliable, and has been proven to have provided bad datings for more than one artefact in the past.

Rubbish. As has already been dealt with in this thread the shroud image is the result of painting

No, it is not.

If you know even HALF as much about the Shroud as you are pretending, then you'd be fully aware of the FACT that the image on the Shroud is NOT the product of an artist's pigment.

Anyway -- this is YOUR claim, so not my burden of proof nor anyone else's -- please can you point me to a peer-reviewed scientific paper, published in a scientific journal or similar publication proving that the composition of the image on the Shroud is the product of the application of artist's pigments.

and has been duplicated using medieval techniques. Several times.

Nope.

You REALLY should read the research papers provided up-thread, you know ...

Now, to reiterate:

You are entitled to your personal opinions, of course, but I would not accept half of what you have written there as being factually accurate.

 

[Slowvehicle]

sigh, I think I'll just drop my side of this utterly pointless side discussion, as a waste of anyone's time.

Especially since we have the witness of the Shroud of Chippewa Falls^TM!11elevendy11!

This really has me puzzled though --- a "hair style" ??? Are you joking ???

This is quite clearly someone who has simply let his hair and beard grow out ; the only evidence of "styling" is some trimming of the beard and his fringe.

Is there some magical reason why it was impossible for men to have hair and beard grown out in that manner prior to the 1200s ?????????

Is there some reason why my own hair and beard, which are similarly grown out, might be "anachronistic" to the 21st century ???????? Am I too, a 14th century forgery ??????????

*sigh*

I Cor 11:14.

(You do realize that all the hippified, long-haired, gentle white-guy jeebus pictures in all those baptistries are not photographs, right? We don't know what Yeshua ben Ioseph, if he existed, looked like, or what coif he adopted---but long flowing locks would have been unusual, and egregious, given what we know of 1st-century semitic habit and coture)

BTW: what is up with the multiple interrogation marks?

!11elevendyZOMGelevendy11!

 

[jond]

Please don't be snide, all that it achieves is to weaken your own arguments.

I wasn't being snide. I honestly don't know if you agree with Jabba's claim here (re: all involved agree that controls were ineffective) and since you seem to be arguing in favor of his side I didn't want to misrepresent you.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

- Yes.

Most of the contributors to this thread biased against not just authenticity of the Shroud, but against ANY dating of the Shroud earlier than 14th century.

Jabba, the question was both irrelevant and provocative -- you shouldn't let them yank your chain, for the sole purpose of their own entertainment.

 

[Dinwar]

Most of the contributors to this thread biased against not just authenticity of the Shroud, but against ANY dating of the Shroud earlier than 14th century.

Nope. This is entirely false.

The problem you and Jabba have is that REALITY is biased towards a 14th century date. As in, that's where all the data point. And that makes your delusions impossible to prove.

For my part, I would be perfectly happy either way. In fact, I'm rather surprised it was found to be a 14th century artifact. I figured that even back then people would have known enough to find some old cloth to use in their forgeries. It's not like cloth is a Medieval invension, after all.

Jabba, the question was both irrelevant and provocative

No, the question is perfectly legitimate. You're choosing to ignore the context of the statement in order to make it mean what you want it to--or, as we put it when dealing with Creationists, "You're cherry-picking again." The context was quite clearly a discussion of the term "bias" and what it means in C14 research. Since Jabba clearly wasn't using the term in any legitimate sense (ie, any sense that's actually applicable to the system in question--he was not, for example, discussing biases due to variations in plant metabolisms, or calibration curves, or the like), it seems likely that he's accusing the researchers of deliberately altering the data. Otherwise, bias becomes completely irrelevant to the discussion. Jabba has, for several months, evaded defining "bias" like the Dukes of Hazzard evading Boss Hog, so asking a direct question to pin down what definition he's using is a perfectly legitimate rhetorical tactic.

This whole post demonstrates that you're not interested in an honest discussion. I hope those who are more actively responding to you take note.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

Why are you assuming that a bad dating MUST necessarily be discrepant by 1300 years ?

Why not 100 ? 200? 450 ?

Well?

"Well?" is not a very useful answer to my question "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 ?"

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

Well, it's quite the leap of logic to suddenly go from "I don't think that a 1st century burial cloth could look like that" to "it's a fake".

There is NO evidence, in the first place, (following your weird notion that the Shroud can ONLY be either a) a fake or b) the honest-to-goodness burial shroud of Jesus Christ ; with NO other possible theories whatsoever) in Scripture that Christ was entombed anything other than extremely hastily, because there were only a couple of hours before the Sabbath started, and the handling of corpses would become ritually impossible.

Certainly no evidence there of any great big traditional Jewish burial for Jesus.

Plus, He was entombed by Christians in the first place...

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

I have ALREADY pointed out that the documentary is unscientific in nature -- why belabour a point that wasn't worth making in the first place ?

The fact that it's Entertainment TV does not magically vanish away the fact that a 3D image of the Shroud Man was successfully extracted from the Shroud.

Blatantly untrue.

Your personal rejection of that data does not magically vanish it away.

Anything claimed by shroudies falls apart when examined.

This is just open prejudice.

I have very little time for any of the more bizarre claims, but it seems obvious to me that your definition of what constitutes a "shroudie" would include anyone and everyone not sharing your cast-iron belief that it's a 14th century forgery. I do not consider such an attitude to be rationally motivated.

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.

No, I'm not -- repeating claims made by third parties does not require believing such claims -- in fact, I neither believe nor disbelieve them.

Evidence of the above, please.

So you're claiming that a magic invisible repair technique might exist so the radiocarbon dating (and other data) should be abandoned?

That is an extremely poor analysis of my position.

The shroud might have been woven by invisible sky pixies you know.......

The radiocarbon technicians might be demigods who are magically endowed with forensic infallibility and weave analysis omniscience, despite their entire lack of training in that VERY obscure discipline...

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.

"the experts" --- in fact, ONE single individual.

BTW, the "invisible reweaving" technique is more accurately referred to as interweaving -- it is NOT the same technique as French re-weaving.