Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No.

Have you had any luck finding any reference at all to dating by caramelisation in any context whatsoever?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's hardly my fault that the 3D model of the Shroud Man that I was interested in, in relation to questions about image distortion, was published there, instead of somewhere less blatantly disrespectable instead -- 80-90% of everything else in that programme is unsubstantiated guesswork.

No, but it is your fault that you give it credence, and that you cited it in this thread.

 

[JabbaPapa]

No, but it is your fault that you give it credence, and that you cited it in this thread.

What, despite the umpteen times that I describe it as unscientific ?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

There's so much wrong in JabbaPappa's posts that correcting something tiny like this seems pretty superfluous, but ...

Check out Acts 11:26, where it clearly says that the word 'Christians' was first used in Antioch when Barnabas and Paul preached there, which (by my calculation) would place it sometime after AD 45.

Also, using the Vulgate as your reference? Really?

 

[tsig]

How about just make your case?

Looks like hot air, bluster and faux indignation is all he's got.

 

[IanS]

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

Yes.

- --- Jabba

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

What on earth is supposed to be wrong with me asking Jabba to clarify if he is saying that the C14 labs were biased against the authenticity of the shroud?

You said the question was " irrelevant and provocative " ... and ... " for the sole purpose of their own entertainment "? Where did you ever get that idea?

It most certainly is not irrelevant, provocative, or for anyone's entertainment.

Be clear about this - the context of Jabba's "Yes" answer is that in his immediately preceding posts Jabba was suggesting scientific bias as his explanation for why he says the C14 labs published entirely wrong dates for the shroud.

And since all three labs effectively found the same date range between 1260-1390AD, I'm simply asking Jabba to clarify whether he is saying that all three labs conspired to deliberately falsify their dates.

What are you claiming to be provocative, irrelevant, or otherwise wrong about that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What, despite the umpteen times that I describe it as unscientific ?

It does seem rather unproductive to cite something while simultaneously saying "this source is actually worthless". If it's not scientific, then why cite it in a scientific debate? It holds no value.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can I also say something? A few months back it was brought up that people's replies to Jabba were becoming increasingly harsh. This was justified by saying that it'd been almost a year and his replies were the same as they had always been, and such replies were born out of frustration. Maybe. However, JabbaPappa is getting exactly the same treatment, despite having been registered for a few days.

When he came here from the GallifreyBase thread, I thought "great". While there are intelligent posters over there, none have the level of expertise, knowledge or database of those in this thread. I thought it'd be a good experience for JabbaPappa to see how well his ideas held up against a rigorous and knowledgeable crowd. However, look at this thread from his point of view. He's mostly been met with accusations, snarkiness, and calls to read a 145-page thread in its entirety, including every link contained in it. Aren't we better than that? I mean, this thread has been a slog at times for those of us following it as it's unfolded over the last year. Imagine if you had to read the entire thing from the beginning and every link before you were even allowed to join in the conversation without being called dishonest.

JabbaPappa says that he's someone asking questions and seeking the truth. Surely there's a productive way that those questions can be answered without resorting to name-calling, accusations, or dismissive cries of "read the thread"? Remember what the "E" in "JREF" stands for and ask yourself whether it's really reasonable to ask every newcomer to the site from now until the end of time to read this thread in its entirety, or if repeating a few arguments here and there (or even linking to the relevant posts) would be more reasonable. I've often seen it said here that one common woo tactic of silencing dissent and opposition is to blindside anyone challenging their beliefs with a large number of links and references and saying that they cannot have an opinion unless they've read everything. Is that not what's happening here?

Of course, it'd be even better if we could create an index of relevant posts in the OP, or on an external website, but that seems unlikely, and perhaps not too dissimilar to the Atheism+ welcome basket of links.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for calling me a liar.

Thank you for focusing on that one part of my post and ignoring the substance. We have a word for that.

Why expect me to post papers, and then completely refrain from reading them ?

Is this the old "Oh, I have evidence, but you wouldn't accept it" weasel tactic ?

Your attempt to attribute views to me that are foreign to my understanding is also noted.

Views ? I'm just describing your ACTIONS. Sheesh, if you don't even know what those words mean, we have a long way to go.

 

[Belz...]

Rubbish, Rubbish, and more Rubbish.

I'm sure you think this is a very convincing argument.

It's not rubbish. It's simply observation. Shroudies, like conspiracy theorists and other woo-believers, are simply unshaken by facts. They want their conclusion to be true and they twist evidence, or invent it, to support that conclusion. Your behaviour here fits that bill quite nicely.

 

[Belz...]

I've said so, plainly and clearly, about half a dozen times.

Then what's the problem ? The C14 testing ends all debate about the age of the shroud, and if you agree that it's reliable, then what is there to discuss at this point, unless you have some extra evidence to bring forth ?

And don't worry, the format of your posts makes it impossible for me to confuse you with the other Jabba.

 

[tsig]

Can I also say something? A few months back it was brought up that people's replies to Jabba were becoming increasingly harsh. This was justified by saying that it'd been almost a year and his replies were the same as they had always been, and such replies were born out of frustration. Maybe. However, JabbaPappa is getting exactly the same treatment, despite having been registered for a few days.

When he came here from the GallifreyBase thread, I thought "great". While there are intelligent posters over there, none have the level of expertise, knowledge or database of those in this thread. I thought it'd be a good experience for JabbaPappa to see how well his ideas held up against a rigorous and knowledgeable crowd. However, look at this thread from his point of view. He's mostly been met with accusations, snarkiness, and calls to read a 145-page thread in its entirety, including every link contained in it. Aren't we better than that? I mean, this thread has been a slog at times for those of us following it as it's unfolded over the last year. Imagine if you had to read the entire thing from the beginning and every link before you were even allowed to join in the conversation without being called dishonest.

JabbaPappa says that he's someone asking questions and seeking the truth. Surely there's a productive way that those questions can be answered without resorting to name-calling, accusations, or dismissive cries of "read the thread"? Remember what the "E" in "JREF" stands for and ask yourself whether it's really reasonable to ask every newcomer to the site from now until the end of time to read this thread in its entirety, or if repeating a few arguments here and there (or even linking to the relevant posts) would be more reasonable. I've often seen it said here that one common woo tactic of silencing dissent and opposition is to blindside anyone challenging their beliefs with a large number of links and references and saying that they cannot have an opinion unless they've read everything. Is that not what's happening here?

Of course, it'd be even better if we could create an index of relevant posts in the OP, or on an external website, but that seems unlikely, and perhaps not too dissimilar to the Atheism+ welcome basket of links.

Why shouldn't he read the thread, no one has any obligation to spoon feed him information especially when he shows a tendency to regurgitate a lot.

If you want to do that I suggest you do that and cease preaching to the rest of us.

 

[Belz...]

"ben Ioseph" is a modern fabrication -- there is no contemporary record of Jesus ever having used that name.

Well that follows from the fact that there is no contemporary record of Jesus. Period.

 

[catsmate]

a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century [partially untrue -- there is no independently corroborated evidence of its existence prior to 14th century]

No. There is a lack of any evidence that the shroud existed prior to that time other than the (debunked) attempts to link it to other alleged burial cloths.

b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds) [false reasoning, not "evidence" -- the existence of 40 fake $1 bills does not prevent the existence of a genuine one]

Wrong. It gives motivation and background for the fake's creation

c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings [irrelevant -- the MAXIMUM life expectancy of even the most carefully preserved manuscript is about 1200 years. It is unreasonable to expect that any such evidence could possibly have survived in the first place]

Except for all those fundamental writings of course. None of which mention a burial cloth relic.

d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure [This is evidence neither one way nor the other, it is very unsurprising that the colours should have faded since the 16th century when it was first publicly exposed]

Rubbish. The early descriptions of the shroud describe the colours as far brighter than today, given the subsequent fading it's pretty obvious to the unbiased observer that the cloth couldn't possibly have survived from the first century CE.

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; [This is from the same thread that's also denying any distortion from the fold of the fabric]

Irrelevant strawman.

f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough) [ergo it was not laying flat ?]

So explain what the posture was then.

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East [Special reasoning]

No, observable fact. Of all the ME cloth samples known not one matches the shroud's weave.

h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well; [one piece of incontrovertible contrary evidence]

So you accept some reality. That's a good start.

i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East [No, but the The Hungarian Pray Manuscript (1192-1195) depicts the Burial Shroud of Christ as using the same distinctive herringbone pattern] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex ) [this is of course only purely circumstancial evidence contradicting the 14th century dating, but it's evidence nonetheless]

Long since debunked. Do some research, at least read this thread fully.

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake [FALSE -- it indicates that an artist made a copy in painting of the Shroud --- furthermore, NOBODY to my knowledge has ever been able to demonstrate, scientifically, that the image on the Shroud is a painting, and in fact nearly every recent source that I have consulted expressly denies it]

A mass of untruths. Firstly I suggest you actually read the correspondence from d'Arcis before attempting to distort it; you'll find that you allegations about a "copy" (regurgitated from a certain shroudie website I think) are untrue.
Secondly I've linked to several papers about the pigment and binder on the shroud image, as used by medieval artists.
Thirdly I note that you have (yet again) failed to list your supposed sources that deny the shroud was painted.
And finally, this thread contains links to at least three reproductions of the shroud using artistic techniques available circa 1350 I suggest you examine them, preferably with a open mind.
There's even a video of the process of one such reproduction.

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; [Eidolia]

A hallucination like image? That might be applicable to those who claim to see images of coins on the shroud figure's eyes but the style of the image itself is certainly not hallucinogenic.

l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period [Well, NO it isn't -- but this aspect of the image is certainly very odd]

Go do some research on art styles of the period, specifically the importance of the effigy.

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods [No -- artefacts superficially resembling the Shroud have been created, none of which to my knowledge exhibit chemical qualities identical to those of the Shroud image]

Denial of reality. Just silly.

7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin [Link ?]

Already given earlier in the thread.

o) chemical testing shows the same [Link ?]

Already given earlier in the thread.

r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths; [Well, that's not exactly a very good quality corpus of reference]

Is there any example of a similar Jewish burial shroud? From any period?

s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;

I notice you don't address this point.

t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today [irrelevant]

Au contraire, if Jesus didn't exist the shroud is very clearly a fake......

u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355 [I do not believe that there is any even "doubtful" reference to the Shroud prior to 10th century]

So where was the supposed first century shroud then?

9. Serological:
v) 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 [Lying -- that's a pretty serious accusation]

Yes it is, unfortunately it's quite common amongst woosters when reality fails to comply with their beliefs.

And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating. [Nobody can seriously doubt the methodology of the radiocarbon testing]

Jabba and many other shroudies do. Of course their opinions aren't taken seriously except by other believers.

Ah, well, catsmate1.
There's still the possibility Jabbapapa's posts will bring something fresh to the discussion.

I'm not hopeful. So far s/he's demonstrated the usual unwillingness to do the necessary research, back pedalled frantically when shown to be wrong an denied simple facts.
Pretty much the usual wooster.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why shouldn't he read the thread, no one has any obligation to spoon feed him information especially when he shows a tendency to regurgitate a lot.

Nobody has any obligation to do anything. But it just depends on what people are trying to achieve by posting in this thread. If it's to mock and dismiss, then that's fine, but it doesn't strike me as very productive. Seems to me that there are higher standards that people could be holding themselves to.

But of course you're right, there's no obligation to do so.

 

[catsmate]

Questions are not claims.

Yes, yes we're all very familiar with the technique of JAQing off.

Thank you for your gratuitous decision not to answer my question.

So you still haven't performed the calculations? Come on this is late secondary school stuff.

Well why did you not answer my question then ? Your knowledge is useless to me if you expect me to use ESP to get it out of you.

Why should I waste my time doing your research for you? Try and learn for yourself.

Rubbish.

That is why I asked a question.

And failed to supply a mechanism, made silly claims and failed to support them.

Accusing me of this or that does not answer my questions -- and people's descriptions of the quality of the first 130-odd pages of this thread do not encourage me to read them.

Again I have no intention of indulging your laziness and unwillingness to do some actual work.

You're mistaken -- I don't "dismiss" it as politicised, I describe it as politicised.

This does not mean that I assume that his science is unassailable -- if I thought so, WHY would I come in here and ask questions -- that's right, not "claims" --- about this dating ?

You describe it as politicised and dismiss it on what ground then? It's been comprehensively demolished scientifically.

Again, they work at this end. (Oh, I see from your quote, the forum can mess up their html -- I see ; sorry about that, they were correct when posted -- %2f should be replaced with / if it does that)

Yes I corrected your error and examined the paper. Then I commented on it.
It's recycled crap.

Yes I did.

Good grief, you expect me to read back through the thread, but then keep on making these claims that simply demonstrate that you've not read my own comments.

I've read your comments. You have failed to do your research.

I explained the "why" -- IF any pre-14th century documentary evidence could be verified, THEN this would require a re-evaluation of the dating.

Re-examination to determine if such documentation was valid, referred to the shroud and was as reliable as the radiocarbon dating. None exists so this can be dismissed.

As things stand, they cannot be so verified, therefore the dating is merely contradicted by this evidence, but not so strongly that it must be abandoned.

Rubbish.

Nevertheless, I *do* doubt that you're familiar with the methodology.

I'm curious, how much historical research have you done? I've completed the work for my doctoral thesis.

"nothing" is an exaggeration. It is of limited value, but I am amused by your expectation that I would think any differently.

Again with the back pedalling.

I note that you fail once again to answer my questions, whilst happily denigrating the answers that I provided to your own (grossly leading) questions.

Nope. You attempted to denigrate the radiocarbon dating with innuendo about failures, when I challenged you on this you tried to cover over your error.

How many times exactly must I point out to you that I am not a radiologist of any kind ?

And yet you feel able to made claims about radiocarbon dating.

I have NO interest in your fantasy interpretations of whatever you imagine me to believe -- your textual interpretation skills appear to be as poor as my radiological ones.

This is actually amusing.

The only analysis I've read of the pigment fragments describes them as existing in minute quantities, principally in the form of minute grains of dust, and that the most likely reason for their presence was contamination from paint dust from nearby works of art, and ceiling and wall paint.

So do the research,. Preferably before making claims.

The binder traces I have seen described as products used during repair work and restoration.

Where were they so described? I expect a peer-reviewed citation of course.

Your theory depends solely on the dating being accurate -- unless you're going to tell me that you're an expert in Mediaeval studies ?

No. But I've spoken to them. That's the advantage of having access to a university, lots of people with actual expertise and a generally willingness to answer questions

Right, a mediaeval forger creative a photographically negative image

I see you're recycling this claim. It's untrue as you'd know if you'd bothered to do the research.

a 3D image of a forensically accurate image of a scourged and crucified man could be extracted using 21st century technology.

Garbage.

<snip>

So, unable to refute McCrone's work with actual science you're attempting to smear him with innuendo (just like Jabba tried earlier in this thread). Fail.
And while McCrone made a few errors in his examination of the Vinland map his basic point, the presence of twentieth century pigments show it to be a fake, has been confirmed.

I'm not going to waste time on Garza-Valdès's magic "bioplastic" coating, this was debunked. Gove, BTW and contrary to the implication in the material you parroted, accepts that the shroud is a medieval fake.

I have not "denied" that some superficially similar artefacts have been created, contrary to your hysterical claim to that effect.

Projection

Yes -- I've noticed that you are not taking kindly to even the barest hint that your cherished mediaeval forgery belief might be called into question on the basis of conflicting evidence.

What conflicting evidence is that?

 

[catsmate]

Looks like hot air, bluster and faux indignation is all he's got.

Not to forget innuendo, denial, evasion and JAQing off.

He's mostly been met with accusations, snarkiness, and calls to read a 145-page thread in its entirety, including every link contained in it.

JabbaPappa says that he's someone asking questions and seeking the truth. Surely there's a productive way that those questions can be answered without resorting to name-calling, accusations, or dismissive cries of "read the thread"?

He's got an obvious agenda, has made claims without supporting them, expects others to spoon feed him and shows a double standard on evidence.
It's up to him to do the research; skimming this thread and reading more more important points would take less time than he's shown himself willing to waste so far.

 

[Akri]

I have explicitly, clearly, and plainly explained that I am interested in seeing answers to questions brought up by those parties.

Yes, and if you spend a bit of time on this forum you'll find that it's common for believers of woo to claim that they are only "asking questions" or that they're "not really a believer, but..." and then to proceed to act in ways that make it clear the person actually is a believer with an agenda. And like it or not, your actions so far fit that profile. Your questions are questions that only ever get posed by people who believe the Shroud is a miraculous artifact. You're presenting "evidence" that is only ever presented by believers, and that was debunked long ago in this thread.

In return, I have been accused of believing some gigantic pile of RUBBISH, as well as accused of being a liar.

You're not exactly being polite to everyone, either. For instance, when you said that there was "evidence" that wasn't independently corroborated, I replied that such a thing does not count as evidence. This was your response:

WHY do you think that I made that caveat in the first place ?

Shall I inform you that the sky at midday is often blue ?

Sarcasm and an insinuation that I'm an idiot. You called something that does not qualify as evidence "evidence" and when I pointed out the problem with that you ask if I need to be informed that the sky is blue. You're in a glass house when it comes to rudeness and accusations.

And sorry -- given the tone of the thread as I've seen it so far, it would be masochistic to voluntarily subject myself to an extra 130 pages of it -- needlessly, given that a summary of arguments has been posted on a recent page.

First, I did read 100+ pages before joining the discussion, so you'll get no sympathy from me. Second, if you're going to continue bringing up points that have already been dealt with (and that's pretty much all you've done--did you ever do that search for "Rogers" I suggested?) then you're just going to be told to read the thread to find the responses to your statements/questions. We've already done this work. We're not gonna do it all again just because you don't want to read the thread.

What about the other members calming down their own exaggerated rhetoric and gratuitous personal attacks ?

You can't control the other members. You can control you. And if you change how you act, there's a strong chance they will change how they act.

What sort of image of them do you think these conjure up in my own mind ? (hint : NOT a positive one)

And we can all say the same thing about how your actions reflect on you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yep, see ?

No mention of her name.

Generals and particulars are different.

A bit of context:

Paheka asked:

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

To which you replied:

Having spent some time in the outskirts of the specialist fashion, costume, and fabric University milieu, I have acquired the assumption that it is safer to assume that a specialist working in that field is of dubious competence.

In 90% of cases, the assumption will be accurate.

90%+ of those with ANY degree of skill in the discipline go and work in cinema or TV costume departments, or with the Fashion houses.

You know -- where they have something called money to pay people with.

The research discipline is plagued with microscopic funding, an almost complete lack of facilities, petty in-fighting, and petty jealousies.

In Italy, also, the research positions are provided almost exclusively through nepotism.

Since your post was indirect response to a question about whether you, personally, think that Mme. Fleury-Lembert is competent, it does, in fact appear to implicate Mme. F-L. You may claim it does not, but you ought to be aware of its appearance.

How shall I take your post, then? Is there some other recognized textile authority associated with working on the medieval artifact, in Italy, 'gainst whom your canon is leveled? Is it just a bit of drive-by well-poisoning?

Do you find Mme. F-L's work competent? Trustworthy? Do you find the work of some other textile authority who has had actual access to the cloth more compelling?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Some very small numbers of copies or fragments of Scripture have certainly survived beyond 1200 years ... but you could probably fit all of them into one cardboard box.

The exception that proves the rule.

Only an infinitesimal quantity of Ancient writings has survived --- the near totality of it by copying.

Aaaaand you miss the point again. I'm used to specious arguments blurring the distinction between when the text was initially written and the date of the earliest surviving document, but not usually in this context. The date when a particular copy was created is nigh on meaningless when there are many documents that were created at the time and subsequently copied over and over.

If there was a shroud with the image of Jesus that was known to exist in the 1st Century, you would have to suppose that no one at the time mentioned it to the evangelists or other NT authors. You'd have to suppose that the early church fathers knew nothing about it or completely forgot to mention it in any of their writings. Plenty of documents have survived from these sources, because people were motivated to copy them, but there isn't even a hint of a shroud anywhere. It's almost as if it didn't exist.

To support the belief that the shroud's genuine and was around back then, you'd either have to come up with some plausible reason for no one mentioning its existence but still deciding to carefully preserve it, or you'd have to believe that the conspiracy Jabba's been trying oh-so-hard not to allege extends all the way back through history, incorporating generations of scribes faithfully excising any mention of the shroud in the hope that someone using some fancy not-yet-invented technique would be confused about its age, for unknown reasons.

But don't worry too much, because the biggest problem for you is still the 14C dating. It's just ironic that you pick at the tiniest hint of a possibility that the dating might be inaccurate, while proposing ideas like this with gaping holes all over them.