Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[abaddon]

Now, now, abaddon.
No need to be cynical- think of all the fantastic information that's been posted up here.

Oh dear me, no.
While, as an engineer, I was aware of C14 dating, and in broad, how it works, the informed posts here from the likes of Dinwar, wollery, et al have been most informative. I know more than I did previously, and kudos to them and those I did not mention (cuz this thread is so long. You know who you are).

Anyway, I find the return to the patch idea almost endearing, myself.

It's not endearing, it's disingenous.

I can't wait to see just what Jabba has come up with by way of evidence on the subject.

Wait and see. He will look it up. Sometime. When he has a chance.

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

Good times!

For a certain value of "good".

 

[John Jones]

I can't help but agree with Agatha.

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

[...].

This gripes me about shroudies and YE creationists. They make appeals to science in support of their faith, which appeal fails at first glance, so they immediately turn to pseudoscience.

At least the Catholics seem to have stopped this stuff.

 

[John Jones]

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 .
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.)
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.
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. And finally,
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

I THINK I've got 100% certain, incontrovertible proof that you are wrong, and an unabashedly disingenuous and biased fabricator who talks out both sides of his mouth. Furthermore, I SUSPECT you own stock in the Shroud of Turin, and I THINK you stand to profit handsomely if you can cast doubts on its medieval origins.

I will post evidence as soon as I get time. I've got things to see and people to do. You know how that is.

 

[catsmate]

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

Yes. The only element of the sampling not filmed was the packaging, carried out by Tite, Gonella and Ballestrero and certified by them.
Some of the lunatic fringe of shroudies, the ones who claim a conspiracy, say Tite substituted the samples; this ignores not on the two believers present but also the distinctive weave of the shroud fragments observed by the testing labs.
In other words it's utter nonsense.

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

A desperate need to believer.

This gripes me about shroudies and YE creationists. They make appeals to science in support of their faith, which appeal fails at first glance, so they immediately turn to pseudoscience.

Their faith is weak, it needs a crutch.

At least the Catholics seem to have stopped this stuff.

Catholicism tends to be built more around the authority of the church rather than things like the bible; this allows it to accept concepts like evolution more easily.

 

[Giordano]

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 .
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.)
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.
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. And finally,
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

As already pointed out, the only way for you to make any of these 5 statements is to absolutely ignore the facts already pointed out to you. No bias, no patching, sample location chosen by Vatican experts, sample had unique weave that identified it as representative of the rest of the shroud, 2 labs did blind their analyses, statistical analysis was also performed blinded. Let me repeat the last points, since you appear unable to understand or to acknowledge it: the analyses in two of the labs were blinded. I'll even say it again: the analyses performed by two of the labs were blinded.

 

[Alleyprowler]

1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .

They were looking for dates, nor for authenticity. A first century date wouldn't prove anything beyond the interesting fact that herringbone weave cloth was present in the first century.

Let's turn this around. Suppose they were "pro-authenticity" and pushed for a 1st century date: how would this show that the shroud was used to wrap the temporarily dead body of the son of God? Also, why was there no 3-D distortion on the shroud? Did Jesus bleed tempera paint?

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.)

Textile experts who were actually there and who actually examined the cloth, hands-on, with magnifying glasses and microscopes, have said there is no patch.

And you, an armchair theorist with no expertise on the subjects at hand, who is admittedly biased and has only seen photographs, most of them online, can detect an "invisible" patch? Really? What kind of special training have you had that can trump experts in ancient textiles, paleontology, chemistry, and radiocarbon dating?

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.

How do you identify an anti-authenticity observer? How do you know which way they are biased? How do you know which anomalies are significant, and to what degree? What qualifications do you have to judge them by? How could they have effected the test results? Do you even know how the test results are achieved?

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.

Wait. You don't fully understand arguments against your statistics, yet you think they are a result of bias? Really? What are you talking about?

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.

That is the most weaselly thing I have read in...oh, about a month. "We don't know how the results could have been biased, therefore Jesus."

Are you going to posit that the researchers' bias against a 1st century date affected the equipment somehow? That would be my next guess.

 

[pakeha]

...It's not endearing, it's disingenous. ...

Hmmm.
I see what you mean.
Pseudo-science IS disingenuous and must be supremely irritating to an engineer.

Yes. The only element of the sampling not filmed was the packaging, carried out by Tite, Gonella and Ballestrero and certified by them.
Some of the lunatic fringe of shroudies, the ones who claim a conspiracy, say Tite substituted the samples; this ignores not on the two believers present but also the distinctive weave of the shroud fragments observed by the testing labs.
In other words it's utter nonsense. ...

I wonder if Tite knows he's suspected by loonies of such an act...

As already pointed out, the only way for you to make any of these 5 statements is to absolutely ignore the facts already pointed out to you. No bias, no patching, sample location chosen by Vatican experts, sample had unique weave that identified it as representative of the rest of the shroud, 2 labs did blind their analyses, statistical analysis was also performed blinded. Let me repeat the last points, since you appear unable to understand or to acknowledge it: the analyses in two of the labs were blinded. I'll even say it again: the analyses performed by two of the labs were blinded.

If Jaaba is unable to answer this, perhaps JabbaPapa would take a crack at these points?

 

[catsmate]

I wonder if Tite knows he's suspected by loonies of such an act...

I believe so, though I'm not aware of him responding to such claims directly, most scientists wouldn't.
I *do* believe that the reaction of the believers, leavened with hysteria, pseudoscience and ignorance, is one of the reasons few real scientists wish to involve themselves in this debate; it's not worth the hassle of dealing with these frothing lunatics.

The accusations against Tite started soon after the publication of the dating results; one Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, a right wing Catholic and member of a traddie group calling itself "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth Century" accused Tite of surreptitiously acquiring thirteenth century fibres and substituting them for the shroud samples.
Of course to any rational person this is sheer lunacy, for several reasons;

1. Tite would have required the connivance of Gonella and Ballestrero, both believers in the authenticity of the shroud, and in Ballestrero's case it's official custodian, to make the substitution.
2. The fibres were supplied by Jacques Evin, a nuclear physicist working at the radiocarbon laboratory at Lyon; further they were handed to Tite in Turin by Gabriel Vial, the textile expert from Lyon. Nothing surreptitious.
3. These threads, from the cope of St Louis d'Anjou, constituted the fourth sample tested by the labs, the third control sample. Everyone knew about them and their dating result was somewhat different to the shroud sample.
4. Contrary to Bonnet-Eymard's claims, still parroted by the fringe of shroudies, the samples were completely different in appearance to the shroud sample; loose threads rather than a piece of herringbone weave cloth and easily told apart even by non-experts.

To summarise; it's a lunatic conspiracy theory for desperate believers.

 

[pakeha]

Of course you're right, catsmate1, but all the same if I had the spare change I'd plump for the movie rights.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference. - I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.

OK, well that sounds like a direct admission that bias cannot be an explanation for the C14 dates.

Ian,
- That isn't what I meant -- but I think I see how you got that...
- In the hi-lit(?) line, I should have said that blinding has no bearing on bias in determining the protocols -- which is where I thought that bias could have its biggest effect in the C14 process. Does that help?
--- Jabba

 

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference. - I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.

Ian,
- That isn't what I meant -- but I think I see how you got that...
- In the hi-lit(?) line, I should have said that blinding has no bearing on bias in determining the protocols -- which is where I thought that bias could have its biggest effect in the C14 process. Does that help?
--- Jabba

Does that help what?

 

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference. - I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.

Ian,
- That isn't what I meant -- but I think I see how you got that...
- In the hi-lit(?) line, I should have said that blinding has no bearing on bias in determining the protocols -- which is where I thought that bias could have its biggest effect in the C14 process. Does that help?
--- Jabba

No, I don’t think that does help.

Whatever the stage at which any proposed scientific bias may or may not have occurred, it still leaves that same key question unanswered -


Q. - How could three independent labs in different parts of the world all arrive at the same wrong date?

 

[pakeha]

...- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud. ...

What do you mean?
What clues?

 

[Jabba]

...What you say above is going right back to your earlier argument saying the sample must have been a patch of some kind (dating from circa. 1260-1390AD).

Though in a previous recent post I thought you had agreed that the patch idea cannot be right?

Are we ditching the idea of bias leading all three labs to the same wrong date, and going back now to the idea of a patch again?

Ian,
- It seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that the Frenway method of invisible reweave -- the method to which Marino refers -- is not responsible for the young age determined by the carbon dating. I'm not sure that I said that right -- whatever, I can't believe that Marino was right in his claim...
- I am of the opinion that there was some sort of patching done that was either not detected, not "appreciated" or not admitted, by those involved in the testing. But then, I also accept that in order to actually account for a 1300 year age differential, such patching would have to involve a sizable "patch"...

- I'll get to my reasons for thinking that there was some sort of patching involved -- in the sample -- as soon as possible.
- But, keep in mind that I don't see patching as being the only factor that could lead to an incorrect dating of that magnitude, and that the main reasons I think the dating is incorrect are indirect rather than direct. (Maybe, I should say that they are "circumstantial" rather than "direct" -- though there is probably a better word than "direct.")

--- Jabba

 

[Belz...]

Does that help?

At this point in the thread, nothing short of an admission by you that the shroud is a medieval fake would help.

 

[pakeha]

...- I am of the opinion that there was some sort of patching done that was either not detected, not "appreciated" or not admitted, by those involved in the testing. But then, I also accept that in order to actually account for a 1300 year age differential, such patching would have to involve a sizable "patch"...

- I'll get to my reasons for thinking that there was some sort of patching involved -- in the sample -- as soon as possible. ...

I'm looking forward to reading your reasons there was some sort of patching not detected, "appreciated" or admitted.
Of course your reasons won't be ones you've posted up before.

 

[IanS]

- I am of the opinion that there was some sort of patching done that was either not detected, not "appreciated" or not admitted, by those involved in the testing. But then, I also accept that in order to actually account for a 1300 year age differential, such patching would have to involve a sizable "patch"...

-

Unfortunately the patch idea suffers the exact same problem as the bias idea. Eg, you now have two similar questions about conspiracy -



- Q1. How could all the many dozens of scientists at three independent labs in different parts of the world, all examine their samples in microscopic detail and all state categorically that there was no sign of any patch, if in fact there were actually signs of a patch? Was that a conspiracy?



- Q2. If the C14 science staff at three separate labs all ignored signs of any patch, then why have none of them ever admitted it after 25 years of pro-shroud people claiming that there was in fact visible signs of a patch? That would again be suggesting a conspiracy.

 

[Olowkow]

--It's a shame that YouTube is blocking this clip from Monty Python. I'm sure everyone has seen it though. John Cleese as Anne Elk.==
------Olowkow


---Jabba:

- I'll get to my reasons for thinking that there was some sort of patching involved -- in the sample -- as soon as possible.

--

Anne Elk: Oh! What is my theory?
Presenter: Yes!
Anne Elk: What is my theory that it is? Well, Chris, you may well ask me what is my theory.
Presenter: I am asking.
Anne Elk: Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it, that it is, this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is. My theory, that I have, that is to say, which is mine... is mine.
Presenter: Yes, I know it's yours! What is it?
Anne Elk: ... Where? ... Oh! This is it.
Starts prolonged throat clearing
Anne Elk: (clears throat) This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows... (more throat clearing) This is how it goes... (clears throat) The next thing that I am going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ian,
- It seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that the Frenway method of invisible reweave -- the method to which Marino refers -- is not responsible for the young age determined by the carbon dating. I'm not sure that I said that right -- whatever, I can't believe that Marino was right in his claim...

It seems to me that you are unable to sustain a reasonable doubt.

Do you have any idea at all of what statements like this do to your overall 'argument'?

- And then, of course, I want to believe all that...

--- Jabba

Any???

- I am of the opinion that there was some sort of patching done that was either not detected, not "appreciated" or not admitted, by those involved in the testing.

And yet you (somehow) have detected, appreciated and admitted this patching despite never having been within a bull's roar of the shroud, not knowing how to proceed even if you had been and insisting that saying "patch" creates doubt in the minds of those who know better?

Have a guess how much your opinion is worth, Jabba.

But then, I also accept that in order to actually account for a 1300 year age differential, such patching would have to involve a sizable "patch"...

No you don't.

You are viscerally unable to accept any evidence which speaks against what you laughably refer to as the shroud's authenticity.

- I'll get to my reasons for thinking that there was some sort of patching involved -- in the sample -- as soon as possible.

No you won't. You'll shilly-shally until hell freezes over.

- But, keep in mind that I don't see patching as being the only factor that could lead to an incorrect dating of that magnitude, and that the main reasons I think the dating is incorrect are indirect rather than direct. (Maybe, I should say that they are "circumstantial" rather than "direct" -- though there is probably a better word than "direct.")

--- Jabba

Yes, there is.

Fantasmagoric.

 

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.

No such clues exist.

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

You most certainly did.

Ian,
- That isn't what I meant -- but I think I see how you got that...

So does everyone.

It's a simple matter of reading what you actually post rather than the backpedalling dreck that you use in your flailing efforts to cover up your inability to present a cogent argument

- In the hi-lit(?) line, I should have said that blinding has no bearing on bias in determining the protocols -- which is where I thought that bias could have its biggest effect in the C14 process. Does that help?
--- Jabba

Yes, it helps everyone reading to understand the vapidity of the case you wish you were making.

Bit superfluous, really.