• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to indicate that no one thought it'd be that high--they seem to have pinned down an upper and lower limit, with one in the middle (not an uncommon method). The shroud ended up on the upper end of the limit.

Note to Jabba and his ilk: the controls do not mark the limits of the accuracy of the test. If the shroud had dated to 1400, the fact that no 1400 control sample was analyzed wouldn't disprove anything, much less account for the 1200-1300 years the shroud is missing. I'm just saying that if it were me, and I had reason to suspect a Medieval age, I'd have included something a bit newer.
I'll have a root around and see if I can find why Tite (I assume) selected those particular control samples.

And a potentially fun counter-argument: if the Sudarium is true, the shroud can't be true--Jesus couldn't have been burried in TWO burial cloths!
Well the Sudarium is supposedly the head cloth, mentioned in the Gospel of John, which gives it very slightly more credibility than the shroud.
I'd be interested in a proper examination of it, and comparison with the shroud. Plus updated radiocarbon dating of both.
Of course the believers aren't interested in real science.
 
And a potentially fun counter-argument: if the Sudarium is true, the shroud can't be true--Jesus couldn't have been burried in TWO burial cloths!

Actually, according to the Bible, there were two cloths; one around the body, and one around the head.

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the camp that the Shroud is a fraud. The Sudarium may or may not be a fraud, but even if it isn't it doesn't prove the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. I am amused, though by the people claiming 120 "points of agreement" between the Shroud and the Sudarium. They strike me as the same people who see Jesus on toast or Bigfoot in blurry outdoor photos.
 
... And a potentially fun counter-argument: if the Sudarium is true, the shroud can't be true--Jesus couldn't have been burried in TWO burial cloths!
No fun! The two cloths are in John 20, and needless to say they are invoked by Shroudies to incorporate the Oveido thing also.
5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
So the "linen" is the Turin thing and the "cloth" is the Oveido thing. The Synoptics don't have two cloths, one of the differences between them and John. However, John's linen is in strips, not a continuous shroud, which is a problem for the Shroudies, admittedly.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in a proper examination of it, and comparison with the shroud. Plus updated radiocarbon dating of both.
Of course the believers aren't interested in real science.

I would be very interested in a comparison of the weave to that of the Shroud; the Sudarium is known to be from (at latest) the sixth century*. As well, a proper radiocarbon test (if possible on such a heavily contaminated cloth) would be nice.

* - Further investigoogling has shown that the first reference to the Sudarium is from the year 570.
 
Last edited:
Actually, according to the Bible, there were two cloths; one around the body, and one around the head.

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the camp that the Shroud is a fraud. The Sudarium may or may not be a fraud, but even if it isn't it doesn't prove the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. I am amused, though by the people claiming 120 "points of agreement" between the Shroud and the Sudarium. They strike me as the same people who see Jesus on toast or Bigfoot in blurry outdoor photos.

I don't think we can entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus was a Bigfoot.
 
I don't think we can entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus was a Bigfoot.

Maybe we should test the shroud for Bigfoot DNA. If the test comes back negative, we can always wildly smear the scientists who did the testing and obliquely accuse them of some ridiculous conspiracy. That would practically prove that Jesus really was a Bigfoot, right?
 
Actually, according to the Bible, there were two cloths; one around the body, and one around the head.

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the camp that the Shroud is a fraud. The Sudarium may or may not be a fraud, but even if it isn't it doesn't prove the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. I am amused, though by the people claiming 120 "points of agreement" between the Shroud and the Sudarium. They strike me as the same people who see Jesus on toast or Bigfoot in blurry outdoor photos.
Yes, those "120 points" don't appear to be documented. I find no examples of micro-photographs of the Sudarium to compare the weave or other details.

I would be very interested in a comparison of the weave to that of the Shroud; the Sudarium is known to be from (at latest) the sixth century*. As well, a proper radiocarbon test (if possible on such a heavily contaminated cloth) would be nice.

* - Further investigoogling has shown that the first reference to the Sudarium is from the year 570.
Indeed. I think decontamination would be possible, though I'd need to check that with an expert
 
Maybe we should test the shroud for Bigfoot DNA. If the test comes back negative, we can always wildly smear the scientists who did the testing and obliquely accuse them of some ridiculous conspiracy. That would practically prove that Jesus really was a Bigfoot, right?

We need to get Melba Ketchum to test the shroud for DNA. She's almost guaranteed to find angel DNA. And panda. Also, if Jesus was a Bigfoot, it would explain why he was hairier than we'd expect him to be.
 
We need to get Melba Ketchum to test the shroud for DNA. She's almost guaranteed to find angel DNA. And panda. Also, if Jesus was a Bigfoot, it would explain why he was hairier than we'd expect him to be.

And the length of the arms.
 
We need to get Melba Ketchum to test the shroud for DNA. She's almost guaranteed to find angel DNA. And panda. Also, if Jesus was a Bigfoot, it would explain why he was hairier than we'd expect him to be.

That would make god the father a lemur.

I like it, I like it a lot.
 
That would make god the father a lemur.

I like it, I like it a lot.

This story has legs and we know Jesus leaves footprints in the sand and likes to hang out in the wilderness.
 
Jabba, I want you to answer this question as honestly as you can: WHY did you think, after a year of us patiently explaining the process to you, that there was any room for subjectivity after the testing? What fact about the testing lead you to that belief?
Dinwar,
- The following is my story from 5870, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

- Ian has since commented on those reasons, and I'll respond as soon as possible.
Dinwar said:
No. You've got that backwards. You should assume that when you fail to understand such foundational concepts that your understanding of the process is flawed. Assuming that you, in a pristine absence of any knowledge of the process, are smarter than all those who spend their lives learning it is beyond mere arogance.

As for controls, the concept is simple. You know when the sample was made. If the sample's result is the date it was made, you know the machine was working fine. If it's off, you can use the controls to figure out by how much it was off. There are some technical details (for example, you use controls with about the same date as you'd expect--in this case this would include both a 1st century and a 14th century artifact, along with others--because calibration is only ever accurate within a range and you need to make sure you're not outside that range). That said, until you understand the basics I don't think we should confuse you with the details. In general, controls are there so that we can see how accurate the machine is, by comparing the known date against the results.
Dinwar,

- For whatever reasons, that was the part I was missing. Thanks.

- Whatever, I now accept that the controls were effective for the purpose you give, and that the purpose you give must be the primary purpose for controls in carbon dating in general...
- I now accept that my thinking was incorrect when I said that I thought that everyone involved accepted that the control samples were ineffective -- but then, I'm sure that there is no reason for me to apologize...
- If you wish, let me know, and I'll try to explain.

- Though, I still don't understand how the controls fit into "calibration." When I looked up calibration, it didn't seem to involve the controls. Calibration seemed to simply use the typical effects on the C14 of potential localities and time periods -- e.g. Palestine, 2000 years ago and France 700 years ago -- as provided in standard "calibration curves."


--- Jabba
 
- Though, I still don't understand how the controls fit into "calibration." When I looked up calibration, it didn't seem to involve the controls. Calibration seemed to simply use the typical effects on the C14 of potential localities and time periods -- e.g. Palestine, 2000 years ago and France 700 years ago -- as provided in standard "calibration curves."
I think that's a different type of calibration. That calibration is done to figure out what C14 readings match to what calendar date. The calibration we're talking about, which uses controls, is calibrating the machine to ensure that what it's reading is what's actually there.

For example, water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C. But if you change altitude, the actual temperatures change, so you need to modify your scale to account for that. No controls are needed for this process. When you go to use an actual thermometer, however, you need to make sure that when it says "0C" it's actually measuring something which is 0C. So you measure the temperature of an ice cube (accounting for your altitude) and see if you get the proper result.
 
Dinwar,
- The following is my story from 5870, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.

<snip>


Grow up.


- Whatever, I now accept that the controls were effective for the purpose you give, and that the purpose you give must be the primary purpose for controls in carbon dating in general...

<snip>

- Though, I still don't understand how the controls fit into "calibration."


​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom