Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[abaddon]

Ian,
- Sounds pretty unlikely that they all could miss such a patch if THEY WERE ALL SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ONE IN THAT PRECISE AREA. Can I see your sources?
--- Jabba

Show me yours, and I will show you mine.

Really, Jabba, this is all just comedy at this point. Where do you get off asking for sources when the very best you can do is promise to look up your references some time in the next millenium?

 

[pakeha]

^
I see your point, but the interesting thing is that Jabba himself is narrowing the field of possibilities about the flawed C14 dating to either sheer incompetence supervised by the late archbishop of Turin or a conspiracy perpetrated on a world-wide scale by the scientific community.

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- Sounds pretty unlikely that they all could miss such a patch if THEY WERE ALL SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ONE IN THAT PRECISE AREA. Can I see your sources?
--- Jabba

You want to see my “sources”? You have just seen them all over the last few posts, great long lists of dozens of them. All the numerous people who have examined that precise area of the shroud since the Raes sample was cut in 1973.

Did you not see any of those posts? (Look just one page back to post #6242 for a huge long list of “sources” of all those who examined that precise area since Raes in 1973.)


You have a book (Gove) stuffed with all the sources of who examined that precise area, when, how and why they examined it, etc. etc. Did you not read your own book?

Did you miss all the posts where you yourself and everyone else here discussed Flury-Lemberg and prof Ghiberti's month long examination of the shroud, and their repeated statements that Rogers was definitely mistaken if he thought there was ever a patch. Did you forget all that?

Let me remind you of something about Ray Rogers paper -

- Rogers, who never saw any of the sample cut for C14, made a test for a chemical called vanillin on the few mystery fibres sent to him by Gonella. You remember that in Rogers paper?

- his test was actually negative. He failed to observe any vanillin.

- from that failure, Rogers estimated that the fibres might be as old as 3000 years. But in making that estimate he had to assume the shroud was never hotter than 20 to 25 deg C.

- apart from the fact that it’s almost always significantly hotter than 20-25C throughout most Italian summers, the shroud was known to be in fire a in 1532 which was actually so hot that it melted part of the silver casket in which the shroud was stored. You do know that, right?

- if you remember Antonanacci’s article criticising Rogers paper then you know that the melting point of silver is around 750-900 deg C (depending on how pure the silver is), right? You do know that? Because we have discussed that with you extensively more than 100 pages ago, yes?

- so you do know that Rogers assumption of a temperature never rising above 20-25 deg C at most, is completely mistaken, right? You do realise that completely invalidates his attempts at vanillin dating?



So you do know all the above. You have seen the last few pages of posts with huge long lists of all the people who are known to have examined that precise area of the shroud since 1973. You have all that described in your own copy of Gove’s book… and yet you make a minimalist two line reply to me (quoted above) asking in capital letters for me to “show you my sources” ? ....

....OK, well for what must be at least the 100th time here (literally 100 times!) - please see all the vast lists of sources already just quoted to you in great detail.

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- Sounds pretty unlikely that they all could miss such a patch if THEY WERE ALL SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ONE IN THAT PRECISE AREA. Can I see your sources?
--- Jabba

OK, so the above post #6283 is the direct and very extensive detailed answer to your request for “sources”. And that still leaves us with you not having provided any answer to the key question. So here is the question again -



Q - how could all three labs, and all the committee members, Flury Lemberg, Prof Ghiberti, and everyone else since 1973 (inc. STuRP and Ray Rogers himself in 1978), when they were all specifically looking for any such patch in that precise area, all fail to notice that the entire sample cut for C14 was not actually from the shroud at all, but was instead just a piece of cloth from something else entirely?

 

[catsmate]

Ian,
- Sounds pretty unlikely that they all could miss such a patch if THEY WERE ALL SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ONE IN THAT PRECISE AREA. Can I see your sources?
--- Jabba

I have already cited them; I assume you are, as usual, ignoring material that disproves your pathetic fantasies.
No summarise for the hard of thinking;

• the shroud was initially studied in 1973 (methodology, techniques and persons involved discussed previously) and a sample removed (the Raes sample) for further testing.
• after the radiocarbon dating was agreed to it was decided to take material from the same area of the cloth for dating; this lead to several additional textile experts examining the cloth (including on the day of the sampling)
• the most detailed examination was in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed (previously the rear of the shroud was studied using endoscopy).
• the verdict of all the experts involved was that there was no patch

^
I see your point, but the interesting thing is that Jabba himself is narrowing the field of possibilities about the flawed C14 dating to either sheer incompetence supervised by the late archbishop of Turin or a conspiracy perpetrated on a world-wide scale by the scientific community.

Which, as has been discussed, is utter nonsense.

OK, so the directly above post #6283 is the direct and very extensive detailed answer to your request for “sources”. And that
still leaves us with you not having provided any answer to the key question.

I don't believe Jabba, despite his claim of "twenty years" of study ever reads source material; the only time he actually cited the primary Nature paper on the dating was after I'd posted a link to it.

Q - how could all three labs, and all the committee members, Flury Lemberg, Prof Ghiberti, and everyone else since 1973 (inc. STuRP and Ray Rogers himself in 1978), when they were all specifically looking for any such patch in that precise area, all fail to notice that the entire sample cut for C14 was not actually from the shroud at all, but was instead just a piece of cloth from something else entirely?

God magic.

 

[wollery]

Jabba,

The protocols and procedures for the C14 test were discussed over a period of 10 years. Do you suppose, for one moment, that in the course of that decade discussing what they were going to do that they completely ignored what part of the shroud they were going to test? Do you seriously think that on the morning of the sample cutting they just turned up and said, "Okay, anyone got any idea where we should take the sample from?" That they just picked a spot at random and someone at the back of the room said, "no need to examine that part, looks okay to me from here." ??

Are you suggesting that the senior researchers were all lying when they put their names to a paper that stated the sample was from an area away from any patches or burns?

 

[pakeha]

"View Post
^
I see your point, but the interesting thing is that Jabba himself is narrowing the field of possibilities about the flawed C14 dating to either sheer incompetence supervised by the late archbishop of Turin or a conspiracy perpetrated on a world-wide scale by the scientific community. "

Which, as has been discussed, is utter nonsense. ...

Of course you're right!
I'm just taking advantage of the opportunity to write "Archbishop of Turin", "conspiracy" and "international scientific community" in the same sentence.

I'm a creature of simple pleasures, after all.

 

[Jabba]

OK, so the above post #6283 is the direct and very extensive detailed answer to your request for “sources”. And that still leaves us with you not having provided any answer to the key question. So here is the question again -
Q - how could all three labs, and all the committee members, Flury Lemberg, Prof Ghiberti, and everyone else since 1973 (inc. STuRP and Ray Rogers himself in 1978), when they were all specifically looking for any such patch in that precise area, all fail to notice that the entire sample cut for C14 was not actually from the shroud at all, but was instead just a piece of cloth from something else entirely?

Ian,

- In 6283, as far as I can tell, you only make claims. You don't give your sources for those claims.

- In 6283, you say, You want to see my “sources”? You have just seen them all over the last few posts, great long lists of dozens of them. All the numerous people who have examined that precise area of the shroud since the Raes sample was cut in 1973.
Did you not see any of those posts? (Look just one page back to post #6242 for a huge long list of “sources” of all those who examined that precise area since Raes in 1973.)
- Neither are any "sources" given in 6242.

- Looking back, the first actual, and relevant, sources I can find are given by Catsmate in 6115. In that post, Catsmate is responding to my response to your, 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?... where I said, "I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch..."
- In 6115, Catsmate is referring to several articles in Nature that I really should try to access (though it won't be easy, and from reading Gove, I suspect that they don't deal directly with this question).

- Anyway, I think that I might now understand how you and I pass so easily in the night without seeing each other. By "source," I meant a research paper. By "source," I think that you meant a particular person...

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- In 6283, as far as I can tell, you only make claims. You don't give your sources for those claims.

Jabba's brand of logic: "If I look in one place, and it's not there, that means it doesn't exist!"

You have an extraordinarily hard time finding your keys, don't you?

- Anyway, I think that I might now understand how you and I pass so easily in the night without seeing each other. By "source," I meant a research paper.

It's astounding to see such a bold lie stated as if it were true. Jabba, you've NEVER given ANY sources OF ANY KIND for your delusions, with the exception of your gut! To claim that you define "source" as "a research paper" is simply laughable.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's astounding to see such a bold lie stated as if it were true. Jabba, you've NEVER given ANY sources OF ANY KIND for your delusions, with the exception of your gut! To claim that you define "source" as "a research paper" is simply laughable.

Well, it all depends on how he defines "research paper", doesn't it? And given his record here, i think we all can easily assume what he means by that: random "papers" that border on crackpottery. Like that Rogers thing, where samples of unknown provenance, with no verifyable chain of custody, get processed by some rather bogus procedure in a kitchen.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[tsig]

The two inch Jesus

Ian,

- In 6283, as far as I can tell, you only make claims. You don't give your sources for those claims.

- In 6283, you say, You want to see my “sources”? You have just seen them all over the last few posts, great long lists of dozens of them. All the numerous people who have examined that precise area of the shroud since the Raes sample was cut in 1973.
Did you not see any of those posts? (Look just one page back to post #6242 for a huge long list of “sources” of all those who examined that precise area since Raes in 1973.)
- Neither are any "sources" given in 6242.

- Looking back, the first actual, and relevant, sources I can find are given by Catsmate in 6115. In that post, Catsmate is responding to my response to your, 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?... where I said, "I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch..."
- In 6115, Catsmate is referring to several articles in Nature that I really should try to access (though it won't be easy, and from reading Gove, I suspect that they don't deal directly with this question).

- Anyway, I think that I might now understand how you and I pass so easily in the night without seeing each other. By "source," I meant a research paper. By "source," I think that you meant a particular person...

--- Jabba

To prove the shroud is fake just look at the top head, that's right you can't look at the top of the head because there is no imprint of the top of the head on the shroud which there'd have to be if this was an imprint made by a by a 3D object.

Judging from the thickness shown on the shroud Jesus would have to be about two inches thick to make this impression.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Your demand for scientific citations is hilarious in light of your admission of having read almost none of the actual publications, pro or anti- Shroud, despite your claims of years of study of this field. What are you going to do with any new citations provided to you? Have you read the ones already presented here? If you had you probably wouldn't be demanding more evidence of what is already clearly established. Last I remember you were considering taking a 20 minute trip to a local library to look up some of actual scientific papers: did you ever get there?

Let's just stick with the Nature paper, where they note the samples were away from detectable patches. Good enough?

 

[pgwenthold]

Ian,
- Sounds pretty unlikely that they all could miss such a patch if THEY WERE ALL SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ONE IN THAT PRECISE AREA.

Since that was the area they wanted to examine, it would be pretty dumb to be looking for patches somewhere else.

Then again, are you suggesting that it was a very large patch? Jeez, maybe Ian's suggestion is right - it is ALL a patch.

I go back to my comment yesterday: you need to explain what the in blazes you are talking about. What kind of patch are you suggesting? When was the patching done? Where did they get the material?

You can't just say, "It might be a patch, therefore the date is wrong." You have to explain, coherently, how this supposed patch explains the results that were obtained. Otherwise, you got nothing.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You have to explain, coherently, ...

There's your problem....

Greetings,

Chris

 

[PiedPiper]

I'm still stunned that Jabba is trying to prove the Shrouds authenticity using science.

*It can't be done*.

We don't have what we need to conclusively say this is the Shroud of Jesus.

In fact, believable scientific data (to this point) says just the opposite.

^ That's as simply and directly as I can say it.

When trying to bring an argument into someone else's environment, you have to be willing to respect their rules.

You can make arguments against the science that has been performed on the shroud; be prepared to have evidence to back up your argument, or you'll be summarily dismissed. You can't make arguments that this is the True Shroud, because that's not even something that's possible right now. In order for science to prove that, you'd have to have reference DNA samples / unbroken, iron-clad chain of custody / an accurate 14C dating to the correct date / comparison of the cloth to authentic cloth of the period, and many other data points. The more the better, because you're making a dramatic claim. To the best of my knowledge, none of those things exist.

So right now, you can't prove your hypothesis using Science. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?

Poke all the holes in the 14C dating that you want. (We can always invisibly patch it later, global conspiracy and all that). But you need to bring facts - hard data points, gathered using scientific methods - in order to counter a scientific argument that is already backed up by hard data, and it has to overwhelm the opposition.

If you can't provide these pieces of evidence, according to the rules, you lose.

I'm not trying to detract from your faith, please understand me. I struggle to reconcile my faith with my scientific background every day. But you're making a mistake that I've made in the past, and I'm trying to help you out. Many matters currently sustained by faith cannot be brought into the realm of science, because that realm has certain rules that have to be followed and you will never "win" a scientific argument based on gut feelings, suspicions, unproven accusations, and unproven (or worse, disproven) theories.

It's incompatible. I'm sorry if this upsets you .

 

[catsmate]

Well, it all depends on how he defines "research paper", doesn't it? And given his record here, i think we all can easily assume what he means by that: random "papers" that border on crackpottery. Like that Rogers thing, where samples of unknown provenance, with no verifyable chain of custody, get processed by some rather bogus procedure in a kitchen.

Or the BM screed, no review, no real science and presented at get together of shroudies.

Your demand for scientific citations is hilarious in light of your admission of having read almost none of the actual publications, pro or anti- Shroud, despite your claims of years of study of this field. What are you going to do with any new citations provided to you? Have you read the ones already presented here?

If he read the primary Nature paper and it's citations that would be a good start.

Since that was the area they wanted to examine, it would be pretty dumb to be looking for patches somewhere else.

Well the 1973 examination covered the whole cloth, including from the rear, so any patches would have been discovered.

I go back to my comment yesterday: you need to explain what the in blazes you are talking about. What kind of patch are you suggesting? When was the patching done? Where did they get the material?

• Who did it?
• Who paid for it?
• Where was the technique used learned
• Why was the technique not used after the fire damage?
• Why has it never been used again on any fabric?
• Why is there no record of the alleged patching?

 

[IanS]

Ian,

- In 6283, as far as I can tell, you only make claims. You don't give your sources for those claims.

You say they are only "claims"? And you want me to provide “papers”?

You are doubting that Flury-Lemberg and prof Ghibirti examined the shroud for a month in 2002, with the backing cloth removed, and both clearly stated that Rogers was profoundly wrong ever to have claimed a patch? You are disputing that are you?

You are disputing that a sample was ever cut from that precise region and studied by Gilbert Raes as long ago as 1973?

You are disputing that STuRP themselves, inc. Ray Rogers, examined that precise area of the shroud in 1978 and retained sample fibres from that area?

You are disputing that you have had the article from Antonacci saying that thousands of photos of that precise area have been taken?

You are disputing that the 10 year long committee meetings discussed that Raes area in great detail? Remember, that committee was initially intending to perform the C14 dating on what remained of the Raes sample. You are disputing all that?

That 10 year long series of meetings is all described in Gove's book, which you have. Are you disputing that?

You are disputing that a great number of people were present deciding for 2 hours, on film, that the C14 was being cut from an area free from repairs and patches?

You are disputing that the actual C14 paper, co-authored by all three labs, specifically says the procedure had been to cut the sample well away from any patches or repairs? You are disputing that are you?

You have already had, numerous times over, the exact references to the paper in Nature, the article by Antonacci, the findings of Gilbert Raes in 1973 (eg see Gilbert Raes: “The textile study of 1973-1974”. Shroud Spectrum International. 1991. N°38/39.)

You can check for references on all this yourself in Wikipedia. Here are a couple of very recent examples you may have missed -


Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud...]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Rogers stated that after further study he was convinced that: "The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[74] However such claims are disputed by Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[75]



I could go on, but .... what are you actually disputing here???


And by the way you are still not answering the now long overdue question -


Q - how could all three labs, and all the committee members, Flury Lemberg, Prof Ghiberti, and everyone else since 1973 (inc. STuRP and Ray Rogers himself in 1978), when they were all specifically looking for any such patch in that precise area, all fail to notice that the entire sample cut for C14 was not actually from the shroud at all, but was instead just a piece of cloth from something else entirely?

 

[abaddon]

Ian,

- In 6283, as far as I can tell, you only make claims. You don't give your sources for those claims.

Oh, please. You give no sources at all, ever.

- In 6283, you say, You want to see my “sources”? You have just seen them all over the last few posts, great long lists of dozens of them. All the numerous people who have examined that precise area of the shroud since the Raes sample was cut in 1973.
Did you not see any of those posts? (Look just one page back to post #6242 for a huge long list of “sources” of all those who examined that precise area since Raes in 1973.)
- Neither are any "sources" given in 6242.

No, that's a <polite mode on>fallacy</polite mode>

- Looking back, the first actual, and relevant, sources I can find are given by Catsmate in 6115. In that post, Catsmate is responding to my response to your, 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?... where I said, "I can't find where these scientists state that there was no sign of any patch..."

Everyone in this thread has presented evidence, papers, research, discussion and so forth, with one notable exception. You.

- In 6115, Catsmate is referring to several articles in Nature that I really should try to access (though it won't be easy, and from reading Gove, I suspect that they don't deal directly with this question).

Incorrect. YOU don't deal with this question.

- Anyway, I think that I might now understand how you and I pass so easily in the night without seeing each other. By "source," I meant a research paper. By "source," I think that you meant a particular person...

--- Jabba

No, you don't.

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba, I want to point something out to you: Copying JabbaPapa's posting style (which you seem to be trying to do) will not end well for you. He ran crying from this thread because it didn't work for HIM. You are too ignorant of these topics to act as pretensious and arrogant as JabbaPapa did, so it'll only go worse for you.

 

[catsmate]

You say they are only "claims"? And you want me to provide “papers”?

You are doubting that Flury-Lemberg and prof Ghibirti examined the shroud for a month in 2002, with the backing cloth removed, and both clearly stated that Rogers was profoundly wrong ever to have claimed a patch? You are disputing that are you?

You are disputing that a sample was ever cut from that precise region and studied by Gilbert Raes as long ago as 1973?

You are disputing that STuRP themselves, inc. Ray Rogers, examined that precise area of the shroud in 1978 and retained sample fibres from that area?

You are disputing that you have had the article from Antonacci saying that thousands of photos of that precise area have been taken?

You are disputing that the 10 year long committee meetings discussed that Raes area in great detail? Remember, that committee was initially intending to perform the C14 dating on what remained of the Raes sample. You are disputing all that?

That 10 year long series of meetings is all described in Gove's book, which you have. Are you disputing that?

You are disputing that a great number of people were present deciding for 2 hours, on film, that the C14 was being cut from an area free from repairs and patches?

You are disputing that the actual C14 paper, co-authored by all three labs, specifically says the procedure had been to cut the sample well away from any patches or repairs? You are disputing that are you?

You have already had, numerous times over, the exact references to the paper in Nature, the article by Antonacci, the findings of Gilbert Raes in 1973 (eg see Gilbert Raes: “The textile study of 1973-1974”. Shroud Spectrum International. 1991. N°38/39.)

Nicely summarised,

In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, editor of Radiocarbon, coauthored an article with a textile expert in this peer-reviewed journal.[72] They analyzed an unknown sample of 1988 and concluded that they found no evidence of a repair.[73]

Indeed:

We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants.