Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[abaddon]

Open question for Jabba.

You have stated in this thread that you "want" to believe in holey jebus.

You have further stated that the shroud being genuine would shore up that belief, and that is your rationale for this endless thread.

Here is the question:
As a rational person, why would a tatty piece of old cloth be essential to your belief in any god? Billions believe, and don't care at all about such scruffy artefacts. Can it be that you are really an atheist afraid to come out of the closet? Afraid to release the last grasp on the security blanket of religiosity? Don't really believe, and need a medieval fake to be real?

In advance, I know you will ignore this.

 

[pakeha]

He may well be thinking of that. I don’t think that idea will fly though. Because that Raes sample was of course not the exact same piece cut for the C14. The C14 was taken from the area adjacent to where the Raes sample had been cut in 1973. Point being ... any patch covering the Raes sample would also need to extend over the entire strip later cut for C14 ... otherwise all 3 labs could not have got effectively the same date for their samples.

That whole area would need to be one continuous "patch". But in that case everyone would have been able to spot it immediately. Yet it's never been visible to anyone, and on the contrary the C14 sample had the same unique weave of the shroud throughout.

Jabba, just what are those signs you claim were missed or overlooked in the C14 testing?

 

[The Norseman]

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.

He is. He's said as such in this thread even.

There comes a point in which it is absolutely not worth the time and effort and energy that people are putting into responding to Jabba -- even for lurkers, even for first time readers -- because all of this evidence has been put forth time and time and time again.

If first time readers, or lurkers, or fence-sitters happen to come into this thread and discover that we atheistic, non-believers have evilly treated poor, poor, put upon and overwhelmed Jabba... then who really cares?

Seriously, people, there has been a tremendous amount of useful information put in this thread and I am and I'm sure others are grateful, but when is it time to say 'enough'?

 

[Belz...]

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

How utterly convenient for you, eh ?

- I'll try to track down my alleged evidence for patching next.

Here's a better idea: give it up and admit it to yourself: the shroud is a fake. You'll feel better. And so will I.

 

[kerikiwi]

- And, I can see scientists not wanting to 1) admit that they were wrong....
...

- I'll try to track down my alleged evidence for patching next.

Sentence the first: you said that tongue in cheek, didn't you?
Sentence the second: see above.

 

[catsmate]

Not so much for Jabba' sake, because he has other more direct questions to answer first, but just as a general comment on this point about the C14 scientists stating that there was no evidence of any patch or repair -



- the C14 sample was only cut after 10 years of meetings in Turin where the church authorities sat around a big table with the C14 science representatives, members of STuRP, and various other people, deciding how, when, why and where any sample of the shroud would be removed for C14 dating.

As Goves' books makes clear with chapter after chapter of his verbatim notes taken by himself and his secretary during all those meetings, there was frequent discussion of how to ensure that any sample which was cut would be taken well away from areas that were known to be patched (the patches are huge), burnt or otherwise less than ideal. All the C14 labs had representatives at those meetings.

When the sample was finally cut, it had already been agreed to take the sample from close to the area where the Raes sample had been cut in 1973. However, the church officials and STuRP members present still insisted on examining that precise small region of the shroud for two hours before finally taking a few seconds to snip off a few centimetres from that the edge of the shroud. That two hour discussion was substantially about making absolutely sure to the satisfaction of everyone present that there was definitely no sign of any patch, repair, fire damage, or other untoward features on that small strip of the shroud.

When the C14 labs each received their piece of that cut sample, they all examined their pieces under lab microscopes. In Goves book, which Jabba has, there is actually a picture (not very well printed) of one of the photos that the Swiss lab took of their sample.

As Gove made clear, it was immediately obvious to all three labs that the shroud sample had a unique and easily identified weave, which could not be confused with any other cloth (inc. any signs of a repair, as viewed under lab microscopes). Indeed, also in Goves book, it's made clear that during the ten years of meetings, Flury Lemberg as well as Gove and the other C14 scientists, made clear that Walter McCrone's suggestion of a need for blind testing of the samples, was both scientifically unnecessary in the case of a technique like C14, and was in any case practically impossible since the weave of the shroud was unique and instantly identifiable.

OK, so just to be clear - the C14 lab representatives were party to all the above discussions and were witnesses to the procedure of cutting the sample well away from any "patch".

When the paper was published in Nature it was of course a joint publication with all three labs named on the paper, and as others have already pointed out, the paper specifically says that the procedure of selecting and then removing the sample, included agreement from everyone involved that it was cut from a region well away from any areas of repairs, patches or other damage etc.

So that is the answer to Jabba's question.

An excellent summary of the situation. I'd add the following points.
The scientific examination of the shroud can be split into a number of distinct phases:

1. The early work, under the auspices of STURP, from about 1973. This involved visual, microscopic and non-visible illumination of the cloth, tape lifts and the first sample being removed. This lead to a significant scientific belief that the shroud was a fake.
2. The period from 1978 when Gove first proposed the use fo radiocarbon dating, followed by McCrone in 1978 and Harbottle in 1979. STURP prevented the proposal from being referred to Cardinal
   Ballestrero, probably as part of their attempt to maintain control of the examination the shroud.
3. In 1982 an alleged sample from the shroud was dated to 200CE and 1000CE at the University of California.
4. In 1983 the British Museum became involved and contacted six laboratories (Oxford, Rochester, Tucson, Zurich, Brookhaven and Harwell) with a view to developing a protocol for testing the shroud. STURP which had been debating radiocarbon dating since 1979 but was, frankly, not doing much about it was stung into action.
5. In 1984 STURP proposed a series of tests; this plan was sent to Ballestrero who passed to to Luigi Gonella (his scientific advisor), the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Actually arranging a meeting with the BM and laboratory representatives took about two years but happened in Turin from 29SEP to 01OCT1986.
6. The meeting was acrimonious; the scientists felt that the radiocarbon dating was the primary test and that the others proposed by STURP should take second place (they also pointed out that some of STURP's tests would render any sample useless for the dating process. STURP proposed a sampling plan that was opposed by Flury-Lemberg as being too likely to include contaminated material.
7. No formal report was published, agreed by all parties. Gove and Carlos Chagas (a Brazilian biologist and head of the PAS) did write to the Vatican Secretary of State about their concerns, especially regarding STURP.
8. In 1987 after a lot of maneuvering a decision was made; three small samples were to be removed and subjected to AMS radiocarbon dating. Around this time the debate moved to the scientific journals, many articles and letters were written. Gove was unhappy and felt that he'd been edged out of the testing because of this outspokenness. Dutton had two letters published in Nature suggesting that there was an incentive for the Vatican or other believers to interfere with the tests.
9. On 22JAN1988 a meeting was held at the British Museum; present were BM staff, representatives of the three selected laboratories and others. The final decision on the protocol was taken. At this point the impossibility of completely blinding the process was noted.
10. On 21APR1988 the samples were taken, in the presence of the textile experts, the laboratory representatives, Ballestrero, Gonella, Tite and numerous others.

 

[pakeha]

^
Bookmarked!

"...The meeting was acrimonious; the scientists felt that the radiocarbon dating was the primary test and that the others proposed by STURP should take second place (they also pointed out that some of STURP's tests would render any sample useless for the dating process. STURP proposed a sampling plan that was opposed by Flury-Lemberg as being too likely to include contaminated material."

Interesting. Mme. Flury-Lemberg opposed the STRURP recommendations as to a sampling plan.

 

[Belz...]

Bookmarked ? What are you talking about ? Favorited on your browser, or is this some super-sekrit forum function I know nothing about ?

 

[catsmate]

^
Bookmarked!

"...The meeting was acrimonious; the scientists felt that the radiocarbon dating was the primary test and that the others proposed by STURP should take second place (they also pointed out that some of STURP's tests would render any sample useless for the dating process. STURP proposed a sampling plan that was opposed by Flury-Lemberg as being too likely to include contaminated material."

Interesting. Mme. Flury-Lemberg opposed the STRURP recommendations as to a sampling plan.

She did. And the other external experts opposed their test plan as it would have ruined the sample for the purposes of radiocarbon dating.
I believe the exposure of the lack of knowledge of STURP, along with their failure to pass to pass to Ballestrero the 1979 Harbottl/Gove letter sent to him, was one of the reasons they were excluded from the latter stages of the process.

The exclusion of Gove and his university (Rochester, one of the original six proposed and notably the only AMS equipped lab to be dropped) was, in my opinion, due to his public out-outspokenness and habit of rubbing others the wrong way.

It's all politics................

 

[Slowvehicle]

Bookmarked ? What are you talking about ? Favorited on your browser, or is this some super-sekrit forum function I know nothing about ?

I don't know what Paheka is using...but I run Chrome, and have a ton of pages bookmarked as favorites (little star, top right on the tool bar). Saves a bunch of search time...

 

[Belz...]

I don't use Chrome because I don't fancy having to polish my browser all the time.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't use Chrome because I don't fancy having to polish my browser all the time.

*snerk*

 

[John Jones]

Jabba, just what are those signs you claim were missed or overlooked in the C14 testing?

Allow me:

He doesn't know, but he's almost certain that they probably exist, and he'll get back to us with evidence as soon as he can (AKA never).

 

[JabbaPapa]

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.

Investigation of the Shroud is a multidisciplinary affair, not restricted to the field of radiocarbon dating only, and to the sole methodologies of the exact sciences.

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that participation in this discussion would be a pure waste of my time -- the membership seems interested in nothing other than the C¹⁴ reading, as if this were some kind of magic bullet proving every single thesis of the "mediaeval forgery" theory with a single shot.

Sadly, this "discussion" seems to have degenerated into the notion that even *questioning* the "mediaeval forgery" theory is seen by most members as a direct assault upon the scientific and methodological integrity of the scientists and technicians who performed that dating -- which I personally have ZERO interest in attempting to participate in, but the knee-jerk reactions and ponderous insistence of far too many people in this thread permit the discussion of basically NOTHING else.

This is not interesting.

More tellingly, the ONLY things that I've discovered about the broader ongoing Shroud debates since first posting in this thread have been from my own research into the various pros and cons of the various theories of provenance -- though ONE member did post ONE useful link (for which, thank you).

Basically, I find the signal to noise ratio in this thread to be exceedingly low ; though no doubt several members will handily devise some imaginary motivations for me, likely to do with some preposterous claims about me being a "shroudie" and "unable to handle" the "evidence" or somesuch utterly useless RUBBISH.

Anyway, cheerio -- I'll possibly contribute further to some other threads.

I hope you all continue to enjoy your acts of collective cruelty towards Jabba

 

[abaddon]

I don't know what Paheka is using...but I run Chrome, and have a ton of pages bookmarked as favorites (little star, top right on the tool bar). Saves a bunch of search time...

Ah, right. I also run chrome, but it teeters on the brink of rejection from me. The memory leaks are annoying, but not yet sufficient for me to loose the nice features. <snigger>It's a lifestyle choice.</snigger>

 

[Sideroxylon]

Investigation of the Shroud is a multidisciplinary affair, not restricted to the field of radiocarbon dating only, and to the sole methodologies of the exact sciences.

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that participation in this discussion would be a pure waste of my time -- the membership seems interested in nothing other than the C¹⁴ reading, as if this were some kind of magic bullet proving every single thesis of the "mediaeval forgery" theory with a single shot.

Sadly, this "discussion" seems to have degenerated into the notion that even *questioning* the "mediaeval forgery" theory is seen by most members as a direct assault upon the scientific and methodological integrity of the scientists and technicians who performed that dating -- which I personally have ZERO interest in attempting to participate in, but the knee-jerk reactions and ponderous insistence of far too many people in this thread permit the discussion of basically NOTHING else.

This is not interesting.

More tellingly, the ONLY things that I've discovered about the broader ongoing Shroud debates since first posting in this thread have been from my own research into the various pros and cons of the various theories of provenance -- though ONE member did post ONE useful link (for which, thank you).

Basically, I find the signal to noise ratio in this thread to be exceedingly low ; though no doubt several members will handily devise some imaginary motivations for me, likely to do with some preposterous claims about me being a "shroudie" and "unable to handle" the "evidence" or somesuch utterly useless RUBBISH.

Anyway, cheerio -- I'll possibly contribute further to some other threads.

I hope you all continue to enjoy your acts of collective cruelty towards Jabba

Shame you never did deeply engage the signal in this thread, and there have been many excellent posts here. You cast aspersions on the sceptics here but what is your record that you have left in this thread? You can try to spin the situation all you like as your take your ball and head for home, but that record stands and speaks loudly of what really went on here.

 

[The Norseman]

Investigation of the Shroud is a multidisciplinary affair, not restricted to the field of radiocarbon dating only, and to the sole methodologies of the exact sciences.

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that participation in this discussion would be a pure waste of my time -- the membership seems interested in nothing other than the C¹⁴ reading, as if this were some kind of magic bullet proving every single thesis of the "mediaeval forgery" theory with a single shot.

Sadly, this "discussion" seems to have degenerated into the notion that even *questioning* the "mediaeval forgery" theory is seen by most members as a direct assault upon the scientific and methodological integrity of the scientists and technicians who performed that dating -- which I personally have ZERO interest in attempting to participate in, but the knee-jerk reactions and ponderous insistence of far too many people in this thread permit the discussion of basically NOTHING else.

This is not interesting.

More tellingly, the ONLY things that I've discovered about the broader ongoing Shroud debates since first posting in this thread have been from my own research into the various pros and cons of the various theories of provenance -- though ONE member did post ONE useful link (for which, thank you).

Basically, I find the signal to noise ratio in this thread to be exceedingly low ; though no doubt several members will handily devise some imaginary motivations for me, likely to do with some preposterous claims about me being a "shroudie" and "unable to handle" the "evidence" or somesuch utterly useless RUBBISH.

Anyway, cheerio -- I'll possibly contribute further to some other threads.

I hope you all continue to enjoy your acts of collective cruelty towards Jabba

You obviously didn't read the thread so you're really speaking from tremendous ignorance.

Bye.

 

[David Mo]

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

False. This is a sindonist myth. Gove considered the possibility of a bioplastic contamination. He never considered it was proven.

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

Oh, my God, he starts again! The eternal return!

 

[kerikiwi]

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that participation in this discussion would be a pure waste of my time -- the membership seems interested in nothing other than the C¹⁴ reading, as if this were some kind of magic bullet proving every single thesis of the "mediaeval forgery" theory with a single shot.

What are the theses of the medieval forgery?
I understood it was simply this: the shroud is a medieval forgery.
And you are right: the C14 dating is a magic bullet. If it is correct, absolutely nothing else matters.
if it is incorrect, it still says nothing about the origins of the shroud.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Attention: Fantasy ahead!
Flury-Lemberg had access to a time machine, traveled into the future of Star Trek, got an replicator, travelled to the 14th century, treated the area selected for 14C dating with the replicator (injecting enough isotopes to fake the 14th century date) returned the replicator to the future and got home grinning as only mad scientist are able to do.
End of fantasy.
I feel Jabba has surpassed DOC in the ability of ignoring unliked evidence and will believe any fantasy if this supports his main believe of the Turin Shroud as genuine.