Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Belz...]

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.

Well, it is, actually. Once we have a reliable dating for the shroud, any other evidence must be viewed in light of those tests. Do you have any argument that shows it shouldn't ?

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

Yeah, that's a lie. Jabba has been implying not that the dating might be incorrect, but that the scientists might have commited fraud to get to these results. Don't you see that this IS an assault on the integrity of the scientists ?

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

Huh. So basically you came back to this thread to tell us -- again -- that you weren't coming back ?

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

Well, any doubt as to YOUR honesty just went out the window. Cruelty ? Is that what you call demanding evidence for someone's claim, explaining patiently how science works, how the dating worked, etc. and calling Jabba on his dishonesty ?

Truth is, you also WANT the shroud to be true.

 

[Aepervius]

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

1) You brought nothing new to the table and rehashed long debunked stuff in this same thread.
2) You hand waved our objection to well known problem (spatial deformation among others) brought up point which you were told were not demonstrated (blood presence)
3) you JAQed up pretending to just ask question or even pretending you were not supporting a 30AD origin but a slight 14C error, while not even pushing your own theory on how this could be, you have NO understanding on how to calculate the 14C contamination you pretended could have happened, and no understanding on HOW this could happen
4) at the same time you pretended to now be set on a early origin 30AD you pushed documentary or web site which PUSHED that same date
ETA 5) you never gave justification on WHY we should ignore a very reliable dating method (isotopic dating, in this case 14C) and instead should take into account indirect unreliable messy subjective non calibrated non controlled method 8the rest you mentionned) are you a creationist and think isotopic dating is not reliable ? Not an insult thrown at you, but the only persons I can think off which think isotopic dating is as unreliable as you want to push it, are creationist. Using the same type of argument like unproven, never shown, isotopic contamination and external magical event changing isotopic content. I may be wrong but i see only creationist such objections on isotopic dating.

The only things I could find in your defense is that you immediately came under fire. That's a bit sad, but you share the guilt on that : after being told many many time that what you brought up was discussed upthread, you did not bother check it.

 

[catsmate]

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.

It is indeed, which is why this thread (which you appear not to have bothered to read in any detail yet) covers other aspects such as the historical evidence (or lack thereof), matters serological, the paint pigments on the cloth, artistic style and reproduction of the shroud, chemical and microscopic analyses et cetera.
However the radiocarbon dating is the elephant in the corner; an exact scientific test, carried out under unusually strict conditions that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that shroud is in fact a medieval fake. This is why shroudies spend so much effort on attempting to denigrate it.

I have regretfully come to the conclusion that participation in this discussion would be a pure waste of my time

Translation: you've been exposed as knowing damn all about the science of the testing and are running away, tail between you legs.

the membership seems interested in nothing other than the C¹⁴ reading

As I've pointed out this is simply untrue.

as if this were some kind of magic bullet proving every single thesis of the "mediaeval forgery" theory with a single shot.

Well it was excellent work, done under impeccable conditions, that shows that the cloth is a medieval fake and has yet to be disproved, or even seriously questioned.

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

Strawman and a pathetic one at that.

Given that the only way the desperate believers have to impeach the validity of the radiocarbon dating is to engage in such tactics it's hardly surprising that such tactics are critiqued.

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.

Translation: you've been exposed as knowing damn all about the science of the testing and are running away, tail between you legs.

This is not interesting.

Translation: you've been exposed as knowing damn all about the science of the testing and are running away, tail between you legs.

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

So you haven't bothered to do some proper research then? Or actually rad this thread.

Basically, I find the signal to noise ratio in this thread to be exceedingly low

You could improve this by not posting long disproved crap.

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.

Projection.

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

If you do so with the mixture of ignorance, refusal to research and silly attempts to patronise those more knowledgeable than youself you can expect a similar reaction to the drubbing you've received here.

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

You mean pointing out reality to him? Alas the real world can be cruel to those who live in a fantasy.

 

[catsmate]

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

Indeed Other scientists examined possibility and also rejected it. Notable those who examined the cloth in detail.

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

And given that he's been supplied with this information Jabba is now clearly lying.

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.

Damn, you've so near the truth.............
OK, I'll come clean. Actually it was I who created the shroud using 22nd century nano-technology and a borrowed time machine.
All just so I could annoy JP.

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.

Yeah, both cases are similar; desperate refusual to accept an uncomfortable reality that disproves a dearly held belief.

 

[Stuart]

I came here with an open mind – C1 AD or not? But having read 150+ pages of this thread, reading some of the links (some are above me – too technical) and looking at images, I have come to the belief that it can only be a genuine painting of some description from around 1260-1390.
I don’t understand enough about carbon dating to try to attack that evidence, I take the word of three expert establishments – much as I take the word of my doctor when he tells me what is wrong with me. The way I see it the three establishments were told “measure this”, they did and all came back with and externally verified answer.
To me though the easiest evidence to examine is the actual image (albeit from the internet – nothing original). There are too many details that cannot be accounted for.
As has been mentioned here before – the Shroud Slouch. I am double jointed in a lot of my joints and no – I can’t match this position. My arms are just too short
Where is the crown of the head? The image of back of the head almost touches the image for the front of the head.
The ankles are nice and neatly together – really? Whenever I lie down and relax, mine splay apart. A straw poll of some colleagues at work and my family shows that the same happens to them (to different degrees).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

This sentence has no connection to the post of mine it was posted in reply to.

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.

A board with a strong empirical bent is primarily interested in the empirical data, you say? That's surprising.

 

[John Jones]

Investigation of the Shroud is a multidisciplinary affair, not restricted to the field of
[...]

We know. These points were discussed earlier in the thread. You were advised to read it, rather than trot-out rehashed, threadbare, invalid arguments.

What kind of reception did you expect?

 

[catsmate]

We know. These points were discussed earlier in the thread. You were advised to read it, rather than trot-out rehashed, threadbare, invalid arguments.

Oh, he know that quite well. His post is nothing but a self-serving justification, for himself and others, as to why he's fled this thread in such ignominy.
His ego needs stroking given how his "arguments" have been shredded.

What kind of reception did you expect?

I suspect he expected us to immediately, meekly, submit to his opinions.

JP appears to have little experience with skepticism, critical thinking or proper scientific methodology.

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by JabbaPapa
I hope you all continue to enjoy your acts of collective cruelty towards Jabba

What a cynical and offensive thing to say. You do in fact need to spend time reading this thread in its entirety, and you would understand the frustration. This same conversation took place on other forums over the years, at least one of which merely closed Jabba's thread, twice, perhaps believing he was a troll.

The only acts of cruelty that I have seen here, and at "shroudstory.com" have been perpetrated by those who continue to foster, enable and encourage an unfortunate long lasting obsession with a fraudulent relic in someone who really should be encouraged to connect with reality, while claiming to be supportive friends, but proffering no actual real world support for the object of his compulsion. That to me is cruelty.

The fact of the matter is that you have no evidence for authenticity but merely hunches and religious needs that we refuse to accept, so you are attempting to blame your failures on JREF posters.

 

[Belz...]

I came here with an open mind – C1 AD or not? But having read 150+ pages of this thread, reading some of the links (some are above me – too technical) and looking at images, I have come to the belief that it can only be a genuine painting of some description from around 1260-1390.
I don’t understand enough about carbon dating to try to attack that evidence, I take the word of three expert establishments – much as I take the word of my doctor when he tells me what is wrong with me. The way I see it the three establishments were told “measure this”, they did and all came back with and externally verified answer.
To me though the easiest evidence to examine is the actual image (albeit from the internet – nothing original). There are too many details that cannot be accounted for.
As has been mentioned here before – the Shroud Slouch. I am double jointed in a lot of my joints and no – I can’t match this position. My arms are just too short
Where is the crown of the head? The image of back of the head almost touches the image for the front of the head.
The ankles are nice and neatly together – really? Whenever I lie down and relax, mine splay apart. A straw poll of some colleagues at work and my family shows that the same happens to them (to different degrees).

See, this is the kind of post Jabba should be making. Kudos.

 

[tsig]

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

I'd give this flounce a 7. I might have gone higher but it's kinda long and the last sentence is all too predictable.

Now can he stick it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I came here with an open mind – C1 AD or not? But having read 150+ pages of this thread, reading some of the links (some are above me – too technical) and looking at images, I have come to the belief that it can only be a genuine painting of some description from around 1260-1390.
I don’t understand enough about carbon dating to try to attack that evidence, I take the word of three expert establishments – much as I take the word of my doctor when he tells me what is wrong with me. The way I see it the three establishments were told “measure this”, they did and all came back with and externally verified answer.
To me though the easiest evidence to examine is the actual image (albeit from the internet – nothing original). There are too many details that cannot be accounted for.
As has been mentioned here before – the Shroud Slouch. I am double jointed in a lot of my joints and no – I can’t match this position. My arms are just too short
Where is the crown of the head? The image of back of the head almost touches the image for the front of the head.
The ankles are nice and neatly together – really? Whenever I lie down and relax, mine splay apart. A straw poll of some colleagues at work and my family shows that the same happens to them (to different degrees).

Welcome, Stuart!

Good Job!

 

[Akri]

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.

Well, yes. What other possibility is there?

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

Because at this point that's what it has to be. The C14 dating proves that the shroud is a medieval artifact, and since that was the most rigorous radiocarbon testing ever done, the only way the results could be wrong is if the scientists were either incompetent or fraudulent. Those are the only available options.

but the knee-jerk reactions and ponderous insistence of far too many people in this thread permit the discussion of basically NOTHING else.

You didn't really try that hard to discuss anything else. Heck, you posted a broken link and then ignored repeated requests that you fix it from people who wanted to discuss it with you.

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).

What, did you expect us to repeat 150 pages of analysis, evidence, and links just for you?

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

If you think anyone is being cruel I suggest you report them. Though you may want to actually read the discussion before doing so, because you appear to be completely ignorant of what's going on.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by IanS
...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

Ian,

- My bad. I should have said that
1) I wasn't sure which scientists you were referring to, but there were only 21 involved in the dating, and only 5 who actually observed the cutting. I didn't say that because it seemed picayune...
2) Your claim that these scientists "all examine their samples in microscopic detail and all state categorically that there was no sign of any patch" seemed like a stretch, even if you were referring to the 21 involved and putting their names to the article.
3) They did put their names to the Nature article which claimed, "The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." But then, we don't know how they came to that conclusion...
4) Also,were they going from what they had been told by their "leaders" -- the 5 lab scientists who were actually at the cutting? (The leaders being Damon - Department of Geosciences (Arizona?), Donahue - Arizona, Hall - Oxford, Hedges - Oxford and Woelfli - Zurich.)
5) Could the leaders have been referring to the obvious patches and charred areas -- and otherwise the word of those in charge?
6) And then, referring to the sample as coming from the main body of the shroud seems to me technically accurate, but nevertheless misleading.

- Anyway, that was the context of my objection.

--- Jabba

 

[Christian Klippel]

"The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." But then, we don't know how they came to that conclusion...

_We_ do know. It is you who is working hard to not know that.

Hint: They did not just show up and said "Now let's cut a sample out of this tablecloth and test it". Instead a lot of people spent many years to see and decide what part of that table cloth to cut a sample from.

You are being utterly dishonest by continuing that line of "argument".

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Jabba]

_We_ do know. It is you who is working hard to not know that.

Hint: They did not just show up and said "Now let's cut a sample out of this tablecloth and test it". Instead a lot of people spent many years to see and decide what part of that table cloth to cut a sample from.
You are being utterly dishonest by continuing that line of "argument".

Greetings,

Chris

Chris,
- You'll need to provide a source for your claim if you mean that the part decided upon by all these people became the actual sample.
--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

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.

Actually, this isn't true. This is yet again more proof that you refuse to read this discussion, and are willfully ignoring our previous conversations on this topic--in other words, you want to be taken as an expert without bothering to read a few posts.

We considered what it would take to make the C14 reading inaccurate enough to account for the 1,300 year gap between what Jabba wants the shroud's age to be and what the dating demonstrated it to be. We calculated the amount of contamination that would need to be present--it worked out to be more contamination material than shroud material. Since careful, rigorous examination demonstrated that to not be true, and the labs cleaned the samples in any case, we can dismiss that argument. All arguments about machine errors were addressed via the use of not one but two duplicate samples, literally 20 times more than is called for under normal conditions (1 dup for every 10 samples). Further, we know the machines were calibrated properly and running properly because the lab techs ran control samples. Blinding is irrelevant to C14 dating, but it was done in the case of two labs anyway.

In short, we've addressed every single point at which error can enter into the equation. You and Jabba have utterly failed to provide a single rational argument against the C14 dating. We're not clinging despirately to a magical answer; we're pointing out that we've already addressed your concerns, repeatedly, and that they are wrong.

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

This is a lie. Jabba directly accused the scientists doing the C14 dating of fraud, not once but multiple times, based on nothing but his desire for them to be wrong--he has presented NO evidence to support this accusation. You can question the idea that the shroud is a forgery all you want, but if you want to say "Well, maybe they fudged the data to support their biases" you need to provide data. That is slander. Furthermore, it's stupid, as Jabba and you KNOW that the researchers included those biased TOWARDS a 1st century date. You have to know it--we've pointed it out numerous times.

but the knee-jerk reactions and ponderous insistence of far too many people in this thread permit the discussion of basically NOTHING else.

No. We HAVE discussed everything else. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this thread includes more posts than your own.

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).

Translation: I'm so special that you should all re-create a 150+ page thread for my benefit, because why should I have to do any work? The links are in this thread. If you can't be bothered to find them, that's your failing, not ours.

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

Proof positive that you are not a scientist and have never been involved in a scientific debate. What we're doing is actually better treatment than he'd get at ANY scientific conference, particularly after he started slinging around accusations of fraud. That alone could very easily get him removed from the conference (not because of the accusation, but because he has steadfastly refused to offer any proof of his accusations). It's hardly cruel to point out that he's re-hashing arguments that have been addressed no fewer than three times, in great detail, in this thread. It's no cruelty to point out that he's comitted slander when you can quote the slander directly. And it's certainly no cruelty to demand he address the evidence contrary to his pet hypothesis--that's what good scientists do as a matter of course.

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

I hope you don't expect scientists to treat you any differently anywhere else. This has been a remarkably civil conversation, and extremely well-referenced; if you think this isn't either, you're goinig to be sorely disapointed when you explore the rest of the forums.

"The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." But then, we don't know how they came to that conclusion...

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Jabba himself admitted that textile experts in fact have examined the shroud and concluded that there was no patch (his objection was that they weren't tied to the C14 dating, as if that mattered). Now he's ignoring HIS OWN EVIDENCE in order to support the completely discredited notion that an invisible patch is present--one that Jabba has accepted as discredited at least twice, but comes back to like a moth to a flame.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Chris,
- You'll need to provide a source for your claim if you mean that the part decided upon by all these people became the actual sample.
--- Jabba

Fantastic! Now you are implying that they spent all that time for nothing. What do you think happened? When the day came to cut the sample, they suddenly said "Oh well, in honor of our english folks here, let's throw a dart at that table cloth and cut out a piece from wherever the dart gets stuck!"?

Or are you implying that while they cut the sample from the area, which was the outcome of those previous years works, and someone then raplced the sample with something else?

Until _you_ can prove that any of that happened, i have no obligation at all to cough up any additional eveidence. All i need to do is to go by the evidence we already have. And that evidence says that many people (including textile experts), for many years went through a process of deciding where to cut the sample, on the basis of (not only) thourough analysis of the cloth. And the sample, being a result of that decission-making, is what went out to the labs.

If you want to make up some fantasy conspiracy theories, then it is up to you to provide any basis for them. And no, "i think it may.." is not enough.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dinwar]

Chris,
- You'll need to provide a source for your claim if you mean that the part decided upon by all these people became the actual sample.
--- Jabba

Citation has been offered several times. You need to actually put forth some effort and read the previous posts.

 

[catsmate]

1) I wasn't sure which scientists you were referring to, but there were only 21 involved in the dating

Untrue.

and only 5 who actually observed the cutting. I didn't say that because it seemed picayune...

Untrue.

Your claim that these scientists "all examine their samples in microscopic detail and all state categorically that there was no sign of any patch" seemed like a stretch, even if you were referring to the 21 involved and putting their names to the article.

Strawman. You should be quite familiar by now with the textile experts and others who examined the shroud in 1973, 1979, 1988 and 2002 and with the techniques they used and the photographic and videographic recordings taken.

They did put their names to the Nature article which claimed, "The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." But then, we don't know how they came to that conclusion...

By watching as Giovanni Riggi cut the cloth, an action that was video recorded and photographed itself. You should be familiar by now with the concept of "chain of custody".

Also,were they going from what they had been told by their "leaders" -- the 5 lab scientists who were actually at the cutting?

They weren't the only people present.....

(The leaders being Damon - Department of Geosciences (Arizona?), Donahue - Arizona, Hall - Oxford, Hedges - Oxford and Woelfli - Zurich.)

Well, well it seems you've actually read the Nature article at last!!

And then, referring to the sample as coming from the main body of the shroud seems to me technically accurate, but nevertheless misleading.

Your opinion was and is worthless and biased.