Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[John Jones]

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

There you go again.

 

[catsmate]

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

Oh I'm sure something could be done with the story; it's got a bit of everything.

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.

And you (and all the other believers) have yet to show that the area chosen by the textile experts, and repeatedly and exhaustively studied, was somehow different to the rest of the cloth.
Why should we take you biased and amateurish opinion be worth anything?

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

Not true.

- 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...

Does this mean you're going to stop citing the crap written by him and his fellow pyramidiot?

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.

So, based on absolutely nothing but your need to believe, you're slanderously accusing numerous skilled, experienced experts of bias, incompetence or deceit.

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"...

Wrong. You've had this explained to you several times.

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 wont. You've promised this numerous times but never delivered.

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.

Crap. Your only "reason" to believe there is something wrong with the dating is you need to believe, to prop up your faith.

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

And now he's back to his "big patch" rubbish, despite people explaining why this is nonsense.

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.

No to forget the expert re-examinations of the shroud and all those thousands of photos that no-one had bothered to check.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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?

My guess would be "yes", in much the same way as any penitent is required to repeat his mantra.

Here is a short documentary dealing with the subject:

​

Can you hear yourself?

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.

- Jeremiah 5:21​

Sometimes those Old Testament prophets really do give the appearance of knowing what was going on.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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"... (Colors added by Slowvehicle)

- 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

Oh, Rich:

It heeps coming back to incompetence, colusion, or dishonesty, and to support your accusations all you have is that the labs got the "wrong" ¹⁴C date...

...which opinion you could only hold if your opinion of the "wrong" date were based upon your conviction that the cloth must be the True Shroud^TM--no matter what the evidence demonstrates.

I wonder if your circumstantial "evidence" is anything that has not been refuted here in this thread. If it is not--as I suspect--I wonder why you are still clinging to it.

If it is, in fact, something new, I wonder why you have waited this long to trot it out...

 

[pakeha]

Oh I'm sure something could be done with the story; it's got a bit of everything. ...

Yes. You could spin it as the story of a talented young medieval textile restorer who stumbles on the Real Truth^tm about the TS and has numerous adventures accompanied by her nerdy, nail-biting boyfriend (who gets killed horribly/ditched).

There are lots of possibilities here.

My guess would be "yes", in much the same way as any penitent is required to repeat his mantra.

Here is a short documentary dealing with the subject:

​

...

I have the feeling, O Pharaoh, that documentary has provided material for very nearly all the threads in this forum.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

I've just been alluding to something along these lines in the long-running joke that is the LDS thread.

I can't help wondering if it's the secret mission of these fringe bleevers to try and make mainstream religion look rational.

 

[Jabba]

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?...

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

It's carved into a piece of the One True Cross that was placed into Russell's Teapot by Merlin of Carmarthen.

I'll be back with a citation as soon as I can.

 

[Giordano]

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

This is the second time I've referred you to post 6002, which you insist on ignoring. The Nature paper states that the sample was away from patches and charred areas. I know you want to desperately believe otherwise. But the facts are against you.

By the way, I love how you insist on citations from the other posters for statements already documented multiple times on this thread, but never provide evidence to document your own theories.

 

[Agatha]

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

It's the bit where they all agree that the area sampled was "well away" from any patching, repair, scorching....

The weave of the shroud is uninterrupted in the sampling area, even down to the invisible to the naked eye (revealed by STuRP) banding on the linen. If you are now claiming that there is some kind of patching which not only matches the visible weave but also matches the invisible linen banding so precisely that there is absolutely no trace of any interruption in either the weave or the banding, then it is up to you to demonstrate a feasible method for this, and to explain why none of the people who have actually examined and handled the shroud can detect any trace of it, even using the most advanced technology possible.

Unless you are appealing to magic, this claim of an invisible patch has been refuted in its entirety. Only someone who is wilfully refusing to accept reality can continue to pursue the idea of an invisible patch, and if you are that person there really is no point in continuing this thread because you are invoking the supernatural as an explanation of a natural and well understood phenomenon (the results of the radiocarbon dating).

You won't find a quote where the scientists state that there is no evidence of invisible space pixies clinging to the hems of the shroud. OMG, did anyone test for invisible space pixies? Maybe that's what threw the dating off!

Seriously, Jabba, let go of this crazy desire of yours for this piece of mediaeval cloth to be something which it is not. Embracing the reality of the 14th century origin of this shroud will not affect your faith, if your faith is actually in Jesus or God. If your faith is not in the Christian God or Jesus, but only in the shroud itself, then let it go for the sake of your sanity. Worshipping a piece of cloth is not the action of a rational human being.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

...as long ago as 1978; STURP took UV photographs that showed banding in the weave of the cloth; banding that is not interrupted in any way by any evidence of any alteration, repair, reweaving, or "some patching"...

As with all the other evidence, you seem to be willing to ignore it, just because it is inconvenient to your needs.

We have also discussed the statements of Mme. F-L and others.

Are you (still) not taking notes on what you , yourself, post, and what others post in response?

 

[Jabba]

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

Ian,

- First, I'm allowing that none of the involved scientists did actually detect any signs -- that they didn't do the same tests that others did to detect such signs, or that they didn't do them as carefully...
- Next, if some scientists did detect a sign or so, we don't know how many scientists detected signs, nor how many signs they detected. Could have been very few in each case. I'm just suggesting that even if a scientist or two did detect a sign or two, the signs needn't have been sufficient to cause alarm (for someone who simply didn't believe in the supernatural, and couldn't believe that the Shroud actually was the burial cloth of Jesus).
- And, I can see scientists not wanting to 1) admit that they were wrong, nor 2) rock the boat.

- But then, I do suspect that if such signs were serious, and more than one or two scientists appreciated them, someone would have come forward by now...
- I'll try to track down my alleged evidence for patching next.

--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

...- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...

Are you serious, Jabba?

It's the bit where they all agree that the area sampled was "well away" from any patching, repair, scorching....

The weave of the shroud is uninterrupted in the sampling area, even down to the invisible to the naked eye (revealed by STuRP) banding on the linen. If you are now claiming that there is some kind of patching which not only matches the visible weave but also matches the invisible linen banding so precisely that there is absolutely no trace of any interruption in either the weave or the banding, then it is up to you to demonstrate a feasible method for this, and to explain why none of the people who have actually examined and handled the shroud can detect any trace of it, even using the most advanced technology possible. ...

...as long ago as 1978; STURP took UV photographs that showed banding in the weave of the cloth; banding that is not interrupted in any way by any evidence of any alteration, repair, reweaving, or "some patching"...

Apart from this, Jabba, do you really think that Mme. Flury-Lemburg, when she headed the 2002 restoration, wouldn't have blown the whistle on any possible signs of patching in that area?
Or is she part of your conspiracy, too?

 

[Jabba]

It's the bit where they all agree that the area sampled was "well away" from any patching, repair, scorching...

- But Agatha, I don't think that those who agreed to that were the scientists involved in the actual dating.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Ian,
- I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch...
--- Jabba

Did you bother to look?

This is the second time I've referred you to post 6002, which you insist on ignoring. The Nature paper states that the sample was away from patches and charred areas. I know you want to desperately believe otherwise. But the facts are against you.

Not to forget the statements by such experts as Gilbert Raes, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, Franco Testore and Gabriel Vial.
People who, unlike Jabba and the absent JP, have the skills and experience but actually examined the cloth.

Indeed in the preliminary discussions about where to remove the sample for radiocarbon dating Flury-Lemberg pointed out that STURP's initial choice were more likely to be contaminated.

By the way, I love how you insist on citations from the other posters for statements already documented multiple times on this thread, but never provide evidence to document your own theories.

Well he had linked to a few bits, though when examined they either prove to be nonsense, already debunked, wrong, irrelevant or actually contradictory to his claims.
However I feel I should provide references for the statement I've made about various aspects of the radiocarbon dating, therefore here's my reading list:
Tite Turin Shroud; Nature 332, 6164 (1988), p. 482.
Gove Radiocarbon-dating the Shroud; Nature 333, 6169 (1988), p. 110.
Smith Dating the Shroud; Nature 328, 6127 (1987),
Tite Turin Shroud; Nature 327, 6122 (1987), p. 456.
Gove Turin Shroud; Nature 327, 6124 (1987), p. 652.
Dutton Protocols for Turin Shroud; Nature 331, 6152 (1988), p. 108.
Dutton The Shroud of Turin; Nature 332, 6162 (1988), p. 300.
Gove Turin workshop on radiocarbon dating the Turin Shroud; Nuclear Instruments And Methods In Physics Research B29 (1987), pp. 193-195
Harbotle, Heino Carbon dating the Shroud of Turin - A test of recent improvements in the technique;
Schwalbe Isotope measurements and provenance studies of the Turin Shroud;
Both in Archaeological Chemistry IV, (ACS Advances in Chemistry 220)

It's the bit where they all agree that the area sampled was "well away" from any patching, repair, scorching....

The weave of the shroud is uninterrupted in the sampling area, even down to the invisible to the naked eye (revealed by STuRP) banding on the linen. If you are now claiming that there is some kind of patching which not only matches the visible weave but also matches the invisible linen banding so precisely that there is absolutely no trace of any interruption in either the weave or the banding, then it is up to you to demonstrate a feasible method for this, and to explain why none of the people who have actually examined and handled the shroud can detect any trace of it, even using the most advanced technology possible.

It'd also be nice if Jabba (one one of the shroudies) actually did the calculations on how much material would need to be introduced, and of what age, to skew the tests. This would show they have some understanding of the process.

 

[Dinwar]

- 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"...

You are now outright stating that the scientists involved committed fraud. Back up your accusations with solid facts, or admit that you can't and withdraw the accusation.

Secondly, a we discussed multiple times previously, the size of the patch IS IRRELEVANT. You clearly aren't paying attention.

- And, I can see scientists not wanting to 1) admit that they were wrong, nor 2) rock the boat.

Jabba, scientists THRIVE on controversy. We live for boat-rocking. This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to smear scientists as cowards and frauds.

- But then, I do suspect that if such signs were serious, and more than one or two scientists appreciated them, someone would have come forward by now...

If there were ANY signs, and ANYONE had noticed them, they'd have come forward by now.

- But Agatha, I don't think that those who agreed to that were the scientists involved in the actual dating.

They don't need to be. If the statement is true, it's true, and the sample area wasn't around anything that would impact the date. It doesn't matter if the scientists lived 500 years apart; as long as the statement regrading the shroud was true, the people who took the samples took them from a patch-free area.

To be clear: You are now arguing that the fact that someone wasn't involved in the dating invalidates their statements, regardless of whether the statements were true or not. You are, in fact, admitting that you have abandoned all pretense at logic and rationality at this point.

 

[Akhenaten]

<gibberish>

- But then, I do suspect that if such signs were serious, and more than one or two scientists appreciated them, someone would have come forward by now...
- I'll try to track down my alleged evidence for patching next.

--- Jabba

I'd just like to make a quick comment about your secondary motive for participating in this thread - the idea that you can use it to further your agenda of devising a more effective means of debate:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!​

 

[Mister Earl]

- But Agatha, I don't think that those who agreed to that were the scientists involved in the actual dating.
--- Jabba

What would it matter if they did? What would it matter if they didn't? Do you think the results would have changed any? The scientific process is awesome at removing personal bias. It's why science works.

 

[Akri]

- But Agatha, I don't think that those who agreed to that were the scientists involved in the actual dating.
--- Jabba

So? Do you think that the scientists who agreed to that were incompetent or lying? Do you think the samples were not taken from that area?

 

[Akhenaten]

- But Agatha, I don't think that those who agreed to that were the scientists involved in the actual dating.
--- Jabba

It's almost as if there was a degree of separation there that some might interpret as blinding.