Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

What on Earth are you talking about? The process was extensively planned and documented. Do you think after all that planning they handed a pair of scissors to a five year old to snip off a piece at random?

Indeed not. It was done by Professor Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who was involved in the samplings of 1978 and 1988. He was an expert micro-analyst and personal friend of Luigi Gonella.
During the 1978 examination he removed dust samples, and later did some comparative work on the dust mites on the shroud. He also took the first pictures of the rear of the shroud using an endoscope and developed a technique to illuminate it from the underside for micro-photography.
In 1988 he not only did the actual cutting but also organised the video recording of the procedure.
Interesting fro Jabba's accusations he was (he died in 2008) a Catholic, a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.
Oh and an internationally distinguished philatelist.

And here I was panicking about the whole thing being a waste of your obviously precious time.

Now he's wasting it on other threads.

As always, thanks for the insights!

My pleasure, it helps me keep my research skills sharp.

 

[catsmate]

FYI here is the collection of bluster, slander, nonsense and delusion that is the conspiracy theory propounded by Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and his fellow loons in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twenty First Century".
Be warned, browse at your own risk.

 

[abaddon]

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.

Examine the mote in your own eye.

- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .

No, you simply desire that to be true.

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.)

Yet you didn't do that.

Ian,
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.

Sure. Cos scientists are stupid.

Ian,
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,

Really? You don't understand it, therefore you must be correct? Really?

Ian,
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

You got your butt handed to you on that.

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

Yep, promises promises.

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

Nope.

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

More promises of what you decline to present.

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

Oops. Failure to read the thread.

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

Sure you will track it down, not.

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

And after your evasions, you have the brass bollocks to ask someone else for evidence? Really? You present a stream of unsupported assertions for which you will present evidence real soon, and you think you have any standing to criticise anyone else? Really?

 

[pakeha]

Indeed not. It was done by Professor Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who was involved in the samplings of 1978 and 1988. He was an expert micro-analyst and personal friend of Luigi Gonella.
During the 1978 examination he removed dust samples, and later did some comparative work on the dust mites on the shroud. He also took the first pictures of the rear of the shroud using an endoscope and developed a technique to illuminate it from the underside for micro-photography.
In 1988 he not only did the actual cutting but also organised the video recording of the procedure.
Interesting fro Jabba's accusations he was (he died in 2008) a Catholic, a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.
Oh and an internationally distinguished philatelist. ...

A philatelist...an obvious candidate for a conspiracy theory, then.
At least judging by Robert Graves' immortal novel on the subject Antigua, Penny, Puce

FYI here is the collection of bluster, slander, nonsense and delusion that is the conspiracy theory propounded by Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and his fellow loons in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twenty First Century".
Be warned, browse at your own risk.

Been there, done that.
My advice: don't even click on the link.

 

[Christian Klippel]

FYI here is the collection of bluster, slander, nonsense and delusion that is the conspiracy theory propounded by Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and his fellow loons in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twenty First Century".
Be warned, browse at your own risk.

Been there, done that.
My advice: don't even click on the link.

I did. If i ever go insane, i make you two responsible for that. Pakeha for not immediately mentioning to better not click on it, and catsmate1 for coming up with it in the first place.

Also, i want to know what drugs those guys from that link are using. Just so that i can stay far, far away from them.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[John Jones]

When I get the time, I'm going to compile all of Jabba's claims that he will provide evidence for something or another at some time in the future, when he gets the time.

Maybe we'll all live long enough.

 

[tsig]

FYI here is the collection of bluster, slander, nonsense and delusion that is the conspiracy theory propounded by Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and his fellow loons in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twenty First Century".
Be warned, browse at your own risk.

It starts out well:

"The blood stains are composed of haemoglobin and also give a positive result to the albumin test."

Pierre Barbet had intuited this on the steps of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist at Turin on Sunday the 15th October 1933,

Sounds like solid shroudy science.

 

[Stuart]

FYI here is the collection of bluster, slander, nonsense and delusion that is the conspiracy theory propounded by Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and his fellow loons in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twenty First Century".
Be warned, browse at your own risk.

OK - call me mad, but I clicked it.

The only thing of interest is that I am the same height and (estimated) weight as the model for the image.

Might be interesting from that view point to find out any more anomalies with the image.

 

[Agatha]

It starts out well:

"The blood stains are composed of haemoglobin and also give a positive result to the albumin test."

Pierre Barbet had intuited this on the steps of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist at Turin on Sunday the 15th October 1933,

Sounds like solid shroudy science.

Intuited it? A whole pack of laughing dogs wouldn't be enough to convey the ridiculousness of that.

 

[Stuart]

Intuited it? A whole pack of laughing dogs wouldn't be enough to convey the ridiculousness of that.

I hoped it was a mistranslation when I first saw it, but after reading more of the site thought again

 

[Jabba]

Jabba - the above is still not attempting to answer what I said was the Key question here -


Q1. - how is it possible that three independent labs in different countries all measured the same entirely wrong date?

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

 

[Mashuna]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

My best guess is that your alleged evidence will be more allegation than evidence.

 

[Agatha]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud.

The size of the sample is immaterial to the testing, as long as there is sufficient to test. A bigger sample doesn't give a different date, so I am not sure what you are trying to imply with the "postage stamp" comment.

As several people spent the best part of ten years (with microscopic examination, X-rays and transmitted light images to name but a few techniques) determining that the area selected for sampling was exactly representative of the rest of the cloth, this....

I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.

... is no more convincing than it was the last hundred times you have said it. You often promise to return with evidence or citations or explanations or even answers to pertinent questions being posed to you, but I can count on the fingers of one foot the number of times you have actually kept your word.

 

[FergusM1970]

Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud.--- Jabba

Why not? Because it didn't give the age you want?

I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

No, Jabba. If you are challenging the well documented fact that the sample was chosen specifically because it was representative of the entire shroud you need to provide your evidence now. Otherwise you have no argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

This despite the time and care spent selecting and examining the site of the sample?

Are you saying that the site was incompetently chosen (selected without concern for whether it was representative), dishonestly chosen (selected even thought the selectors knew it was representative), or part of a plot (selected because it didn't matter if the sample were representative, the plot had already decided what the date results would be)?

It seems clear that the only thing you have upon which to base accusations that the sample was not representative is that you do not like the results of the ¹⁴C date. Please do not try to present your dislike as "evidence"...

 

[Belz...]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

Key word: somehow. It's just your personal fantasy.

 

[abaddon]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud.

Your guess? Somehow? Now you are simply making stuff up.

I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

Has not happened in over a year. Why should we expect you to deliver this time?

 

[wollery]

Sorry Jabba, but can you please stop referring to "alleged" evidence.

It's either evidence or it isn't.

 

[pgwenthold]

Your guess? Somehow? Now you are simply making stuff up.

And THAT is what he calls, "reasonable doubt."

 

[abaddon]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

Sorry Jabba, but can you please stop referring to "alleged" evidence.

It's either evidence or it isn't.

IMHO, I think it is an apt phrase in Jabba's case. He claims to have it, but nobody has ever seen it, and he can't find it.