Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Agatha]

Why is it that the religious types are the ones most comfortable with bearing false witness?

I have never been able to fathom why lying for a faith is less of a 'sin' than any other lie. It seems to me (lifelong atheist) that if lying is wrong in the eyes of a particular god, then all lies should be equally wrong. Particularly in the eyes of the sort of god who holds that thoughts are as bad as deeds (looking on someone with lust equal to committing adultery).

 

[pakeha]

Deliberate dishonesty or mental confusion?
It's not easy to decide which best accounts for those posts of Jabba's which ignore their earlier contributions to the thread.

 

[Pixel42]

This process functioned in exactly the way you claim you seek:both sides presented their best arguments to be considered and judged openly. What you can't accept is that your side was shown to be wrong.

This.

There are many issues about which it's possible for honest people to disagree, but the authenticity of the Turin Shroud is not one of them.

Discussions about how best to debate contentious issues of opinion are worth having, but they do not belong in a thread about an issue where the facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Stuart]

- Here’s how I see our current situation.
- Over the past several pages, I’ve been trying to deal with 6 different, but related, issues.

1. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2. What’s my “evidence” for patching?
3. How could so many experts -- examining the sample area for patching – miss real signs of patching?
4. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
5. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
6. How could the area examined by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich be such a poor selection, when highly respected carbon dating scientists – including representatives of those 3 labs – selected the sample?

- I’d like to continue addressing #’s 3 and 4, but if you guys would prefer that I address one of the others first (#2, for instance), let me know.

--- Jabba

1. All three labs got (broadly) the same - objective answer. Being "wrong" is subjective.
2. As far as I have read - none.
3. Where is the evidence for the patch ?
4 Ignoring the lack of evidence for a patch, they didn't - other than the C13 patch being 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits.
5. It can't.
6. It wasn't. See 3 and 4

Jabba - can you please try the tests I did about the limb alignment, position of the feet etc that I did and let me know what you find. If you don't find it easy to get up and down to the floor - ask a friend to help.

 

[catsmate]

Never mind JP's (probably not so) final rant has been AAH'd.

 

[Humots]

Never mind JP's (probably not so) final rant has been AAH'd.

AAH'd? Don't know that one.

 

[Dinwar]

AAH'd? Don't know that one.

Means "Placed in Abandon All Hope"--in other words, the Mods decided that some posts needed to be removed from general circulation for one reason or another (usually being off-topic, violation of the membership agreement, or something similar). I'm honestly surprised more of this thread isn't in there.

 

[Pixel42]

AAH'd? Don't know that one.

Abandon All Hope. It's the subforum to which off topic and questionable posts are moved.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58

 

[Humots]

Abandon All Hope. It's the subforum to which off topic and questionable posts are moved.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58

Thanks!

 

[Olowkow]

Yet another crackpot accepting donations to have the shroud tested to prove the C14 dating wrong. Antonacci's website.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/04/18/a...esolve-disputes-regarding-the-shroud/#respond

Even shroud believer Dan Porter at shroudstory.com is skeptical.

This is a rather extraordinary press release that was issued, it seems jointly by Monograph Publishing and Mark Antonacci (pictured), for release today. I’m a bit concerned about factual accuracy when I read:

Antonacci has recently begun a direct appeal to Pope Francis, who has a Masters Degree in Chemistry to approve the application of molecular and sub-atomic testing methods to the Shroud of Turin. These tests, in combination with many prior test results and studies, could prove or disprove with objective, independent evidence that:
1. Particle radiation irradiated the Shroud of Turin linen, its blood and other material;
2. Particle radiation emanated from the length, width, and depth of the dead body wrapped within the cloth;
3. The event occurred in the first century to a first century cloth;
4. The event happened inside Jesus’ burial tomb.

Porter: Oh, by the way, I think it is now well established that Pope Francis does not have a masters degree in Chemistry, not that it matters.

 

[Jabba]

- Not to worry. I’m still around. Been doing lot of babysitting – but also, been developing my access to the NY State library, and requesting articles that Catsmate suggested back in 6115.

- Also, I’ve talked about our need for a “map” of our debate – though, I don’t think I previously called it a “map.” I believe that such debates as ours could profit a lot from a kind of capsulation of where we’ve been, and are.
- Below, I include a part of what I’ve developed so far. If any of you think that such a thing could be useful, you’re welcome to edit as you see fit. I plan to eventually keep it updated on one of my sites, but for now I’ll just plan on updating it here, in later posts. For now, please consider it an excerpt from a very early stage of a Beta model.

- In addition, I’m starting to develop what I consider evidence for patching. Here’s my first baby step. I’ve always figured that the Raes testing is important – being that his sample was adjacent to the C14 sample and he found evidence of patching -- and according to Damon et al, there was no patch or repair near the C14 sample…

- In this paper, at http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf, John L. Brown (Principal Research Scientist of Georgia Tech Research Institute, Retired – and friend of Ray Rogers) states,
The author, as a microscopist, has had an opportunity to examine some of the
Raes threads. Figure 1 shows a weft thread, R7, at an original magnification of 28X.
The thread has a yellow-brown coating with the exception of indented regions which are
white. These indented regions are at the intersection with the warp thread. The weave
was tight enough that the application of a relatively viscous gum/mordant/dye solution
did not penetrate the intersection of the threads. This would appear to be obvious
evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to
match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud
- Brown then goes on to point out other indications of patching.


- Here’s the excerpt of the map I’d like to develop.

1. Anti-authenticity
1.1. Carbon dating resolves the issue. In 1988, carbon dating concluded that the shroud was created in, or around, the 14th century. The entire process was carefully planned and carried out by experts in the field.
- Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
- R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527. [Ian]
1.1.1. Three different labs
1.1.1.1. Protocols called for 7 different labs, using 2 different C14 methods.
1.1.2. All got same answers
1.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
1.1.2.1.1. Patch?
1.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
1.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
1.1.2.1.4. Something else?
1.1.2.2. Then, could be that whole shroud was affected by something.
1.1.2.3. Statistics could be an issue.
1.1.3. Carbon dating is OBJECTIVE process.
1.1.3.1. Not entirely, and “blindness” not effective in this case.
1.1.3.1.1. But was effective in 2 out of the 3 labs. And,
1.1.3.1.2. Blindness, here, isn’t necessary anyway. No room for bias in the measurements.
1.1.3.1.2.1. Lot of room for bias, however, in the DEVELOPMENT process.
1.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
1.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.
1.1.5. Nature is prestigious source.
1.1.6. No issue here unless can show significant issues with the process itself.
1.1.6.1. Think there are several issues with the development process.

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

- Also, I’ve talked about our need for a “map” of our debate – though, I don’t think I previously called it a “map.” I believe that such debates as ours could profit a lot from a kind of capsulation of where we’ve been, and are.

That's simple:

Us: Where's the evidence?
You: This is how we should debate!!!
Us: No, evidence. Evidence! You know, that stuff that supports your argument?
You: You people are big fat meanies! We need to all agree to treat all arguments as equal first!

Repeat ad naseum.

- Below, I include a part of what I’ve developed so far. If any of you think that such a thing could be useful,

It's not. Actually discuss the evidence, or admit you can't. It's been over a year, Jabba.

The author, as a microscopist, has had an opportunity to examine some of the
Raes threads. Figure 1 shows a weft thread, R7, at an original magnification of 28X.
The thread has a yellow-brown coating with the exception of indented regions which are
white. These indented regions are at the intersection with the warp thread. The weave
was tight enough that the application of a relatively viscous gum/mordant/dye solution
did not penetrate the intersection of the threads. This would appear to be obvious
evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to
match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud

Really? Your evidence of patching is that the warp and woof actually touched? That's simply stupid. ANY cloth that's woven will exibit that type of indentation. I've seen such discoloration from two cloths left out in the sun too long, and overlapping. You're not even trying to evaluate what you read, Jabba--you're simply blindly accepting anything that appears to support your a priori conclusion.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your post. We've done so with an astounding precision and frequency. At this point, you've proven that you're not interested in honest discussion, but rather with using rhetorical trickery to somehow score a "win" regardless of the evidence.

 

[Akri]

- Also, I’ve talked about our need for a “map” of our debate – though, I don’t think I previously called it a “map.” I believe that such debates as ours could profit a lot from a kind of capsulation of where we’ve been, and are.

- Below, I include a part of what I’ve developed so far. If any of you think that such a thing could be useful, you’re welcome to edit as you see fit. I plan to eventually keep it updated on one of my sites, but for now I’ll just plan on updating it here, in later posts. For now, please consider it an excerpt from a very early stage of a Beta model.

Not only do I not see a need for that, I think that you constantly posting such "maps" will be confusing. I'd prefer if you kept that out of the thread.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

- 1.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
1.1.2.1.1. Patch?
1.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
1.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
1.1.2.1.4. Something else?

1.1.2.1.5 Aliens?
1.1.2.1.ix Invisible fairy dust?
1.1.2.1.q Has anyone tested the shroud for signs of time travel?

Jabba, why don't you just present any evidence you have for suspecting the carbon dating to be wrong? All you seem to have done so far is to throw wild, unsubstantiated hypotheses around because you don't like the answer, which is rather less than persuasive.

 

[tsig]

1.1.2.1.5 Aliens?
1.1.2.1.ix Invisible fairy dust?
1.1.2.1.q Has anyone tested the shroud for signs of time travel?

Jabba, why don't you just present any evidence you have for suspecting the carbon dating to be wrong? All you seem to have done so far is to throw wild, unsubstantiated hypotheses around because you don't like the answer, which is rather less than persuasive.

1.0.0.0
The magical "particle radiation" that Christ's body gave off during the Resurrection Event produced the Image on the Shroud.

Of course the only way to prove this is thru prayer and fasting.

 

[catsmate]

Yet another crackpot accepting donations to have the shroud tested to prove the C14 dating wrong. Antonacci's website.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/04/18/a...esolve-disputes-regarding-the-shroud/#respond

Even shroud believer Dan Porter at shroudstory.com is skeptical.

That's an example of his level of research.

Not to worry. I’m still around. Been doing lot of babysitting – but also, been developing my access to the NY State library, and requesting articles that Catsmate suggested back in 6115.

I will not be holding my breath.

<snip of more crap about Rogers and his threads>

Does he prove the provenance of those mysterious threads? No? Then stop wasting time with this crap.

<gibberish snipped>

I, for one, have no intention of allowing you to divert and manage this discussion to further enable you to cover over your abysmal ignorance and utter lack of evidence.
Stop wasting time with this crap and provide your supposed evidence.

 

[IanS]

- Not to worry. I’m still around. Been doing lot of babysitting – but also, been developing my access to the NY State library, and requesting articles that Catsmate suggested back in 6115.

- Also, I’ve talked about our need for a “map” of our debate – though, I don’t think I previously called it a “map.” I believe that such debates as ours could profit a lot from a kind of capsulation of where we’ve been, and are.
- Below, I include a part of what I’ve developed so far. If any of you think that such a thing could be useful, you’re welcome to edit as you see fit. I plan to eventually keep it updated on one of my sites, but for now I’ll just plan on updating it here, in later posts. For now, please consider it an excerpt from a very early stage of a Beta model.

- In addition, I’m starting to develop what I consider evidence for patching. Here’s my first baby step. I’ve always figured that the Raes testing is important – being that his sample was adjacent to the C14 sample and he found evidence of patching -- and according to Damon et al, there was no patch or repair near the C14 sample…

- In this paper, at http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf, John L. Brown (Principal Research Scientist of Georgia Tech Research Institute, Retired – and friend of Ray Rogers) states, The author, as a microscopist, has had an opportunity to examine some of the Raes threads. Figure 1 shows a weft thread, R7, at an original magnification of 28X. The thread has a yellow-brown coating with the exception of indented regions which are white. These indented regions are at the intersection with the warp thread. The weave was tight enough that the application of a relatively viscous gum/mordant/dye solution did not penetrate the intersection of the threads. This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud - Brown then goes on to point out other indications of patching.
- Here’s the excerpt of the map I’d like to develop.

1. Anti-authenticity
1.1. Carbon dating resolves the issue. In 1988, carbon dating concluded that the shroud was created in, or around, the 14th century. The entire process was carefully planned and carried out by experts in the field.
- Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
- R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527. [Ian]
1.1.1. Three different labs
1.1.1.1. Protocols called for 7 different labs, using 2 different C14 methods.
1.1.2. All got same answers
1.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
1.1.2.1.1. Patch?
1.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
1.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
1.1.2.1.4. Something else?
1.1.2.2. Then, could be that whole shroud was affected by something.
1.1.2.3. Statistics could be an issue.
1.1.3. Carbon dating is OBJECTIVE process.
1.1.3.1. Not entirely, and “blindness” not effective in this case.
1.1.3.1.1. But was effective in 2 out of the 3 labs. And,
1.1.3.1.2. Blindness, here, isn’t necessary anyway. No room for bias in the measurements.
1.1.3.1.2.1. Lot of room for bias, however, in the DEVELOPMENT process.
1.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
1.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.
1.1.5. Nature is prestigious source.
1.1.6. No issue here unless can show significant issues with the process itself.
1.1.6.1. Think there are several issues with the development process.

--- Jabba

Jabba - first of all, everyone here has repeatedly said to you that they do not want you to start imposing rules for how we should debate anything on this forum. And moreover they have told you repeatedly that they are not going accept your attempts to do that. So it's just pointless for you to keep suggesting ways in which you want to take charge and direct things.

Secondly re the highlighted part from J.L. Brown, that is not as you call it a "paper". It's a pro-shroud believers privately written article. Without even bothering to criticise what Brown has written (which seems to be quite irrelevant anyway), we have long since got to the point in this thread where if you cannot produce real scientific published papers from real journals, then there is nothing to talk about because you don’t actually have any genuine verified "evidence" to put up in opposition to the C14 Nature paper and now Jull's paper in Radiocarbon.

IOW we still have not got you past the request made 100 pages ago asking if you can produce any real independent science paper claiming the C14 is wrong. Unless you can do that, then you actually have ZERO evidence in favour of an authentic shroud.

Don't post anything as evidence unless it comes independently from a real mainstream research journal. The only question has been "do you have any such thing?", and the actual answer is that you very obviously do not have it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip to avoid constant repetition>

Oh, Rich...

Do you simply not read responses?

 

[Belz...]

- Here’s the excerpt of the map I’d like to develop.

Sure beats actually doing something, right ?

 

[John Jones]

- Not to worry. I’m still around. Been doing lot of babysitting – but also, been developing my access to the NY State library, and requesting articles that Catsmate suggested back in 6115.

- Also, I’ve talked about our need for a “map” of our debate – though, I don’t think I previously called it a “map.” I believe that such debates as ours could profit a lot from a kind of capsulation of where we’ve been, and are.
- Below, I include a part of what I’ve developed so far. If any of you think that such a thing could be useful, you’re welcome to edit as you see fit. I plan to eventually keep it updated on one of my sites, but for now I’ll just plan on updating it here, in later posts. For now, please consider it an excerpt from a very early stage of a Beta model.

- In addition, I’m starting to develop what I consider evidence for patching. Here’s my first baby step. I’ve always figured that the Raes testing is important – being that his sample was adjacent to the C14 sample and he found evidence of patching -- and according to Damon et al, there was no patch or repair near the C14 sample…

- In this paper, at http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf, John L. Brown (Principal Research Scientist of Georgia Tech Research Institute, Retired – and friend of Ray Rogers) states,
The author, as a microscopist, has had an opportunity to examine some of the
Raes threads. Figure 1 shows a weft thread, R7, at an original magnification of 28X.
The thread has a yellow-brown coating with the exception of indented regions which are
white. These indented regions are at the intersection with the warp thread. The weave
was tight enough that the application of a relatively viscous gum/mordant/dye solution
did not penetrate the intersection of the threads. This would appear to be obvious
evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to
match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud
- Brown then goes on to point out other indications of patching.


- Here’s the excerpt of the map I’d like to develop.
[snipped headache-inducing colored test]
--- Jabba

It's a waste of time until you start presenting evidence and reading the stuff others present.