Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[John Jones]

Ian,
[...]
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- jabba

More weasel-wording.

 

[John Jones]

Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

But Gove agreed that the ¹⁴C date was correct.

This is pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

<snip> they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.

Recycled crap. Numerous textile experiments, tests, examination et cetera.
No patching, no significant contamination.

If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.

Irrelevant strawman.

I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.

And the frantic back pedaling.
Pathetic.

After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?

And if there was contamination why did each method give the same result. If there was contamination a rational person would expect varied results as different mixes of contamination and actual material were tested.

I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.

More recycled crap. The magic bio-plastic contamination is a myth, debunked in this thread and elsewhere.

I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

How about providing some actual proof for your claims this time?

He'll get back to us - when he has time. Look at all the demands on his time. A sick relative. Shopping. Working. Sleeping. Thinking. Researching his claims.

No. He'll get back to us. He's told us he would.

Yes. He's just wasting our time.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The only ones that i can see would have a vested interrest in tampering with the data would be the church itself. Imagine what a boost it would give them if the date would match to the first century. How much more people would come to see it, and spend lots of money for getting there and for the church.

As for the labs and scientists involved, they would have no gain by tampering the data to show the date it finally showed. Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary, they would also have benefitted from showing a first century date, just for the publicity! "We are the ones that did it!". That would give them quite a boost and very likely drive more customers to them to have whatever kind of relic "verified" by them. After all, they would be the famous "We did the shroud" labs that got the "right" results in the eyes of those concerned.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

I don't think it's possible to convert you to reality.

Your suggestion is insane. You're asking the scientists to remove all sources of possible bias. Barring that, it leaves an unreasonable amount of doubt, leading you, Jabba, to believe the shroud is authentic.

As I said, this is INSANE. Just admit it. It's a fake.

 

[Belz...]

- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.

Again with the insane suggestions. Anything to maintain your faith-based conclusion.

- I'm in a rush right now

I'll assume that's a lie.

 

[Olowkow]

...
As for the labs and scientists involved, they would have no gain by tampering the data to show the date it finally showed. Absolutely nothing. ....

You are forgetting that all scientists are secular atheists and hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems like this is the projection used when the religious feel victimized.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You are forgetting that all scientists are secular atheists and hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems like this is the projection used when the religious feel victimized.

Ha, right! After all, what's a nice career and respect good for anyways if instead you can slap an arbitrary date on some old dirty tablecloth...

It's funny to see how the believers have no qualms about assigning sinister motives to people like scientist, although the risks would far, far outweigh the benefit, while being completely ignorant of what their side would have to gain if they would be the ones playing unfair.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[sleepy_lioness]

You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.

Agatha, speaking as a Christian, this is a beautiful post. thank you.

 

[kerikiwi]

- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

Do you say this out loud every time you post it?
Can you hear yourself?

 

[PiedPiper]

I can't help but agree with Agatha.

Why is Jabba turning to science to "confirm" the shroud?

I can't accept that Jabba simply wants this shroud to be from the correct time period. I don't think anyone would put the amount of time and work into this issue as Jabba has to simply prove it to be a different time period. I think he wants it to be THE Shroud.

As a scientist myself, all I can tell you is Jabba, science doesn't have the answers for you here. To my knowledge there is no scientifically acceptable method of proving the shroud of Turin to be the Shroud, because we don't have reference DNA samples and there's not an acceptable chain of custody for any of the physical aspects of the shroud (blood, fibers, whatever) leading all the way back to the death of Jesus.

Even with authentic DNA references and a chain-of-custody, DNA results are not 100% accurate (100% is a big number, unlike say 99.99999%) and the chain-of-custody could have been manipulated over the years, by persons unknown for reasons unknown. Unlikely, but possible.

Science will never have an absolute definitive answer for you on this issue. Even worse (for your approach to this) is the overwhelming evidence that we do have, all pointing towards "this is not the Shroud". Carbon dating has been performed by multiple labs, all who followed strict cleaning procedures. That's as definitive of an answer as science can give you, and I truly feel sorrowful that you can't accept that.

The shroud of Turin is an intriguing historical object that inspires many Christians and can be used to help strengthen your faith in certain areas. (At least, it does for me). But if you want to bring it out of that defined box and into the realm of science...there's just not any good news waiting for you.

 

[abaddon]

So many veiled accusations and weasel words.

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .

I am sure you do, but it says a lot more about your bias than anything else. You are revealing more about your own predjudices. How, exactly do you know which of the scientists involved was biased and in which direction? Remember, there were more involved than the figureheads. For your notion to fly, all three labs would have to intentionally collude to get the results they did. Your point 1 is simply an underhanded way of making that accusation without speaking the actual words.

2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)

But you won't. You never come good on any of these vague promises.

3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.

Again, this is your bias playing out, nobody else's. I recall, at the time, being quite interested in how it would play out. In fact, in a perverse way, I hoped for an early date as that would be far more intriguing that a medieval fake. Turns out to be a medieval fake.

Stop trying to paint your blatant bias over everyone else here.

4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias.

How on earth can you say on the one hand you do not understand it, yet OTOH it is in part the result of bias? If you don't understand it, how would you know? I will tell you. It is because YOUR bias tells you it must be so.

And finally,

The coup-de-grace, is it?

5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba

Yep, go ahead, ignore all the fine information provide freely by experts throughout this thread. I wonder if you have even read the posts that dealt with this in detail. Once again, this is down to your own self admitted bias, and nothing more. It has no more substance than unicorn boogers.

You freely admit that you have this bias. Why can you not see past it?

I am not sure what more can be done with you short of launching a first strike with the triumvirate scud missiles of data, understanding and enlightenment. But that has been tried already in this very thread, bringing no more result than a slur on all the scientists involved, and indeed on the participants in this thread. We must all be "in on it".

 

[slyjoe]

I can't help but agree with Agatha.

Why is Jabba turning to science to "confirm" the shroud?

...snip

I think it is similar to the creationists. Deep down, maybe they know it's all an illusory set of fairy tales and maybe, just maybe, if there is an inkling of connection to reality, it helps them suppress their doubts.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So many veiled accusations and weasel words.

I am sure you do, but it says a lot more about your bias than anything else. You are revealing more about your own predjudices. How, exactly do you know which of the scientists involved was biased and in which direction? Remember, there were more involved than the figureheads. For your notion to fly, all three labs would have to intentionally collude to get the results they did. Your point 1 is simply an underhanded way of making that accusation without speaking the actual words.
But you won't. You never come good on any of these vague promises.
Again, this is your bias playing out, nobody else's. I recall, at the time, being quite interested in how it would play out. In fact, in a perverse way, I hoped for an early date as that would be far more intriguing that a medieval fake. Turns out to be a medieval fake.

Stop trying to paint your blatant bias over everyone else here.


How on earth can you say on the one hand you do not understand it, yet OTOH it is in part the result of bias? If you don't understand it, how would you know? I will tell you. It is because YOUR bias tells you it must be so.
The coup-de-grace, is it?

Yep, go ahead, ignore all the fine information provide freely by experts throughout this thread. I wonder if you have even read the posts that dealt with this in detail. Once again, this is down to your own self admitted bias, and nothing more. It has no more substance than unicorn boogers.

You freely admit that you have this bias. Why can you not see past it?

I am not sure what more can be done with you short of launching a first strike with the triumvirate scud missiles of data, understanding and enlightenment. But that has been tried already in this very thread, bringing no more result than a slur on all the scientists involved, and indeed on the participants in this thread. We must all be "in on it".

Totally sig-worthy. Do you mind?

 

[abaddon]

Totally sig-worthy. Do you mind?

Feel free. I'm flattered.

 

[pakeha]

...So no, you don't understand the concept of 'reasonable doubt' you're just using the buzzword as part of your attempt to avoid an uncomfortable reality.
Gove, and other scientists, wanted STURP removed from the process of planning the testing because they were widely considered not just biased but obstructive. This was agreed by Cardinal Ballestrero. ...

Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?

...
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.) ...

Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?

 

[abaddon]

Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?

Why, yes. And all of the associated scientists. And all of us. How deep must the rabbit hole get? My ex-spouse, surely? And as my ex, why would she keep shtum? My parents? My kids? My dentist?

Jabba will never define this. It suits the authenticity belief to keep everything vague. Witness the number of things claimed with evidence "coming soooooon". Never happens. At best, expect a link to Rogers malarkey. Over a year into this thread, yet still nothing substantive. Colour me cynical at this stage.

Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?

Apologies, I can't answer that, and Jabba can't answer that after a year or more of asking. Did I mention I was getting a little cynical about this? Over a year, yet still no better response than "I'll go look for it"? Give me a break.

End rant.

 

[Dinwar]

Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

Don't bother. You've just stated that, in essence, NOTHING will convince you that the C14 dating is correct. There is no protocol that will satisfy your requirements. If they're blinded, your argument is that they were switched. If they're not, your argument is that the lack of controls makes them irrelevant. If they're cleaned, you'll say it's not good enough.

 

[tsig]

Ah, yes. Jabba's fantasy requires Cardinal Ballestrero to be in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?




Why do you suspect this, especially when you've yet to substantiate this claim?

God must be in on it since god wants faith and dating the shroud properly would reduce the need for faith He confused the labs as he did the languages at Babel. So the more science data the less need for faith so scientific data that disproves the Shroud actually proves it.

 

[pakeha]

...Did I mention I was getting a little cynical about this? Over a year, yet still no better response than "I'll go look for it"? Give me a break.

End rant.

Now, now, abaddon.
No need to be cynical- think of all the fantastic information that's been posted up here.
Anyway, I find the return to the patch idea almost endearing, myself.
I can't wait to see just what Jabba has come up with by way of evidence on the subject.

C'mon, wasn't it fun to see references to that old friend, 'Polymer' Valdez?
And that hopeless couple, Marino/Bedford?

Good times!