Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[JabbaPapa]

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.

Unlike a corpse, I am not under the effects of rigor mortis, nor has my body been twisted by an undertaker into any unusual position.

Furthermore, are you aware that to have arms of different lengths is a surprisingly common genetic mutation ? You seem to be suggesting that perfectly formed limbs are an absolute requirement in all human life.

Oh, and here we are with the "deformity" theory again --- notwithstanding the contrary suggestions by the anti-shroudies claiming that no deformity from the folding of the fabric is visible.

It's as if some people want to have their cake and eat it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Is this what you were originally referring to as the testing done via caramelisation?

 

[catsmate]

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.

Oh good grief, yet another recycling of Rogers' vanillin garbage. Long debunked, here and elsewhere. Hell even shroudies have shredded it.
Dubious science, unverifiably sourced "threads", terrible methodology and published in a journal with damn all connection to radiocarbon dating but one in which Rogers' had previously published and a test that's been proved to be useless.
Fail.

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

Kindly supply the evidence for blood on the shroud cloth?

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

Oh this is just silly. But again; kindly supply the evidence for blood on the shroud cloth?

 

[JabbaPapa]

No.

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

Do your homework -- a) I posted evidence (and I don't really care about someone's knee-jerk rejection of it) b) Hitchens' suggestion sounds like bad methodology, to me.

 

[Belz...]

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

Well, that's as good a number as I've seen from shroudies here.

I only have questions

I don't think anyone here believes that for a second, not even you. We've seen "just asking questions" too many times.

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

Well, it's a good thing no one here is doing that. Your attempt at equivocation fails, and shows once more that you should perhaps take the time to read the entire thread.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, please tell us what it is, then, since you've done what no one else has done so far, which is discount that hypothesis.

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.

Would you mind presenting evidence for this accusation ? I'm sure most of us were convinced by the research, not some prior conclusion.

Your attempt to pat each other on the back is noted, but it does not further this discussion. Do it via PM.

 

[JabbaPapa]

What is an analytical fallacy?

False premise -----> false conclusions

Most frequently found in the form of a bad syllogism, though there are other such inherently fallacious figures of thought, such as circular reasoning, special reasoning, and so on.

 

[Dinwar]

a) I posted evidence (and I don't really care about someone's knee-jerk rejection of it)

Ironic how the education of numerous posters who have commented on the process of C14 dating and the validity of the shroud samples counts as a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it?

b) Hitchens' suggestion sounds like bad methodology, to me.

Actually, no, it's perfectly sound. That which is asserted without evidence is arbitrary, and has no epistemological validity--it's essentially random, and can only ever be right by blind chance. Thus, it is far superior to dismiss it rather than waste valueable time and resources chaising blind alleys.

The only reason it sounds like bad methodology to you is that you're dishonest. You are starting with the conclusion that the shroud is real, and are willing to throw out anything that gets in the way of that belief, even rationality. That is more or less the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Also, why should we care about your views on methodology? You believe a guy playing with undocumented samples (where's that COC, Jabba?) in a kitchen can provide better results than the single most well-controled radiocarbon sample in the history of the method. Oh, and the kitchen experiment was so poorly done that even YOUR SIDE has dismissed it. Obviously your views on what methodologies are good vs. bad leaves something to be desired.

Do your homework

Says the guy who comes in here petulantly demanding to be taken seriously, despite the fact that his arguments were dealt with a hundred pages ago.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

I have -- though everyone seems to have jumped on the History Channel reference instead, despite the fact that I CLEARLY pointed out its unscientific nature from the outset.

 

[Belz...]

This is just open prejudice.

Otherwise known to JREF posters as "experience".

Furthermore, are you aware that to have arms of different lengths is a surprisingly common genetic mutation ?

You know, there's a thing called "reasonable doubt". And how about the abnormally long arms ? And the abnormal general features of the body ? Distortion, placement of the blood and hair, etc. ?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not going to bother with you until you demonstrate that you've read and understood this thread up to this point.

I don't think that's really fair. JabbaPappa claims to be open to the evidence and that he's keeping an open mind. Therefore, it seems to me, that the best thing to do is to calmly show him why the evidence he is relying on is faulty, rather than trying to browbeat him into submission, as some in this thread are trying to do.

Sure, it might be annoying to some to have to repeat arguments that have already happened in this thread, but this thread is long and it's hard to fish out the good information from it. Repeating that information every now and then is probably less of a hardship than expecting every newcomer to put aside a whole day to read through Jabba's endless posts.

And it's not like progress seems impossible. JabbaPappa has said himself that he doesn't understand the science in the papers he's relying on. There's people here who do. Isn't it better that it's explained to him what's wrong with what he thinks is credible evidence, rather than just telling him "it's already been discussed, go back and read a year's worth of posts, most of which are Jabba explaining why he's going to post something at some indeterminate point in the future"? If he truly has an open mind, then he'll have no choice but to see where the evidence really points. Along the way, he might learn how to evaluate claims such as those made by Rogers for himself, and in future won't give credence to newspaper reports of new dating claims unless there's good reason to do so.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The fact of the matter is that the ¹⁴C dating trumps all other evidence for a first century relic.

Why do you assume 1st century ?

I don't -- I'm simply treating the carbon dating and other mediaeval evidence as proving that the Shroud is at latest, 14th century.

Even IF the dating provided by the radiocarbon testing were wrong (NOT the tests ; the dating), that doesn't mean one should immediately assume a 1300 year discrepancy.

 

[pakeha]

...
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.

...
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 ?



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.



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...

We've already discussed the provenance of th cotton threads here.
Is there some reason why you haven't read those posts?

The link doesn't open.
Please correct that.

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

Plus, He was entombed by Christians in the first place...
BTW, the "invisible reweaving" technique is more accurately referred to as interweaving -- it is NOT the same technique as French re-weaving.

Christians?

I can't find anything that indicates 'interweaving' can be considered an 'invisible' techniques.
Could you post up some sources for you opinion, please?

 

[Belz...]

Says the guy who comes in here petulantly demanding to be taken seriously, despite the fact that his arguments were dealt with a hundred pages ago.

And in some cases, decades ago.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you assume 1st century ?

I don't -- I'm simply treating the carbon dating and other mediaeval evidence as proving that the Shroud is at latest, 14th century.

Even IF the dating provided by the radiocarbon testing were wrong (NOT the tests ; the dating), that doesn't mean one should immediately assume a 1300 year discrepancy.

I think the major question here is: do you agree that the C14 testing was very reliable ? And, if not, please explain what was wrong with it. All other points concerning the shroud are moot until this is addressed.

 

[JabbaPapa]

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

Are you suggesting that one person's opinion with no peer-review on a question concerning the Shroud must be considered as Gospel wherever it supports your own views on the question, but as complete trash when it doesn't ?

 

[Dinwar]

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

Technically, this would be true. However, to go from a 1st century date to a 14th century date, the amount of contamination under discussion, would require more contamination than cloth. If you'd bothered to read the thread, rather than arrogantly assuming that we're all morons that will bow to your superior intellect, you'd see that we've actually done the calculations.

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

Good thing no one's done that, then. Jabba has raised objection after objection, and we've systematically demonstrated them to all be wrong.

In fact, the only people who are refusing to believe facts are you and Jabba. Odd how that works.

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

The degree of historical illiteracy in that statement is simply mind-boggling.

I don't -- I'm simply treating the carbon dating and other mediaeval evidence as proving that the Shroud is at latest, 14th century.

Even IF the dating provided by the radiocarbon testing were wrong (NOT the tests ; the dating), that doesn't mean one should immediately assume a 1300 year discrepancy.

Sweet zombie Jesus! You appear pathologically allergic to the concept of context!! The 1,300 year error is the amount of error required to make Jabba's arguments have any validity. The fact that you missed the single largest issue in the bloody thread more or less tanks your credibility, in my opinion at least!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have -- though everyone seems to have jumped on the History Channel reference instead, despite the fact that I CLEARLY pointed out its unscientific nature from the outset.

If you agree that it's unscientific, then it's probably not the best idea to cite it in a scientific discussion.

 

[pakeha]

What do you mean, Jabbapapa?
Do you have some reason to not think Mme Flury Lemburg competent in her field?

 

[JabbaPapa]

You expect us to reject it because sometimes you help[ed] your [ex-]girlfriend out?

Obviously not -- I'm simply sharing my anecdotal awareness of the fact that the numbers of truly competent fabric analysts is vanishingly small, particularly in Italy, as a caveat.

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

Rubbish, you're reading your own prejudices into my statements, and providing yourself with a justification to deny them a priori.

Particularly given that a great many of them are not "statements" at all, but the expression of various questions.