Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

- Sorry about that.
- These are the papers.
http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html
http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
--- Jabba

Jabba - neither of those are science research journals, as you well know.

The first one appears to be a private publication from someone called Gian Marco Rinaldi who is described as “Shroud researcher”.

And the second one, Chemistry Today, is a general readership monthly magazine, with an article from Sue Benford who is a long time pro shroud activist.

You really must stop trying to pass this stuff of as real scientific "papers".

"Papers" means genuine research reports published in the real mainstream scientific peer-reviewed research journals. Eg, the C14 Nature paper and the Radiocarbon paper from Jull.

Those two articles are not evidence of anything except the well know beliefs of Christian shroud fanatics.

 

[Mister Earl]

Seems like the last nail in the shroudie coffin. Jabba, if this is the best you've got, then your best is nowhere near enough.

Given how easily your last stand fell, are you willing at this point to even consider you might be wrong?

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- I think that the following is all that Damon et al say about "microscopic enlargement."
- Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.

All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material.

- Would some of the cleaning procedures remove paint?
- Would their microscopic searches insure recognizing what the shroudie researchers claim are signs of patching?

--- Jabba

Well the above is clearly stating that they examined and cleaned the sample carefully in an established standard procedure for C14 dating. Where is the problem with that?

Would they have noticed a patch? Sure they would, unless it was so highly concealed that it was not visible.

Is it possible that there was a patch that might have seemed "invisible" to them? Well, anything might be possible. It's "possible" that all 3 labs got their samples mixed up with a piece of old cloth from something else entirely, and it all just happened to be 13th cent and same date as when the shroud is first definitely known ... but it's not very likely is it!

What matters here is WHAT is LIKELY? ...... WHAT is REASONABLE?

It's extremely likely that the C14 dates are correct and that the samples are not from some never detected and never before known patch, which was also absent in Jull's 2010 examination (as well as everyone else’s). And the reasons why the C14 is likely to be correct are all summarised in the C14 paper itself (inc. reference to how carefully the sample had been agreed and chosen by everyone present).

On the other hand, what is extremely UNLIKELY, is the patch claim and other claims. Unlikely because there is actually no real evidence for any of those claims (see my post above for two killer reasons why Rogers paper is wrong), and the claims were only made after the C14 dates were published, and they come only from well known pro shroud believers, who cannot ever get their claims properly published in a real journal (such as Nature or Radiocarbon).

 

[tsig]

biblical evidence against the shroud

- I'll see about getting the Freer-Waters, Jull paper from the State library. Until then, here are a couple of related papers supporting patching in the sample area.
- They claim lots of evidence for patching -- in part, from the STURP research.
- Do any of you guys have direct access to the Freer-Waters, Jull paper?
--- Jabba

John 19:38-42

King James Version (KJV)

38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

The shroud didn't drape the body. where are the spices?

 

[Akhenaten]

The shroud didn't drape the body. Where are the spices?

 

[pakeha]

- I'll see about getting the Freer-Waters, Jull paper from the State library. Until then, here are a couple of related papers supporting patching in the sample area.
- They claim lots of evidence for patching -- in part, from the STURP research.
- Do any of you guys have direct access to the Freer-Waters, Jull paper?
--- Jabba

Wait a mo.
This post seems to indicate Jabba hasn't read the Jull paper yet.
Is this true, Jabba?

- Sorry about that.
- These are the papers.
http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html
http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
--- Jabba

Could you summarise the contents of the first linked article and tell us where it was published, please?

From your second link
"...Also in the ventral missing corner section, which we hypothesize
to consist of restorative surface dyes and what was likely an
undocumented “invisible” medieval repair, is the section
from which the 1973 Raes sample was extracted for analysis. ..."

We already know there's no such thing as an invisible repair which does NOT involve threads from the original fabric.

Is this really all you have, Jabba?

 

[Akhenaten]

Wait a mo.
This post seems to indicate Jabba hasn't read the Jull paper yet.
Is this true, Jabba?

Perhaps he's waiting for it to be translated into Italian.

 

[pakeha]

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Yeah, at this point I think it's pretty clear that Jabba doesn't even read what we post to him.

That point was passed before the page count went into double-digits.

 

[Belz...]

That point was passed before the page count went into double-digits.

And NOW you're telling me ??

 

[catsmate]

- Sorry about that.
- These are the papers.
http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html
http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
--- Jabba

The first paper is rubbish; based on the (unqualified, unreviewed and unverified) comparison of one cloth fragment with no provenence to a poor quality video recording of another piece of cloth

The second paper is the same crap from Benford and Marino that we've dealt with before.

Ian,
- I think that the following is all that Damon et al say about "microscopic enlargement."
- Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.

All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material.

- Would some of the cleaning procedures remove paint?
- Would their microscopic searches insure recognizing what the shroudie researchers claim are signs of patching?

--- Jabba

Read the material I've provided you (and the links) about the techniques used.

Yeah, at this point I think it's pretty clear that Jabba doesn't even read what we post to him.

Indeed.

 

[Jabba]

- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...
4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

--- Jabba

 

[Aepervius]

- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.

You have wrote SO MANY post jsut to justify you have no time it isn't funny anymore. Even at 300 character per minutes that gotta be a long time spent weakly justifying you have no time.

How about writing a last psot saying "I will take one month off to gather data and come back with what i think is a solid case" and then do it instead of peppering us with "i ahve no time" posts ?

2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...
4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

--- Jabba

In other word : word salad trying to justify that you have brought nothing whatsoever, word salad in trying to justify you refuse to accept basic science (which you probably don't understand well anyway).

Don't bother answering me : remember , you have no time.

 

[Akhenaten]

- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.

And every second of it is a complete waste.

What 'debate' there ever was, you lost it months ago.

2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.

And failing spectacularly at it.

3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...

There is but one issue and you are totally unable/unwilling to address it.

4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

You don't get back to any posts ever, in any meaningful way, regardless of their content.

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

--- Jabba

What about if we start posting the sarcasm and derision in Italian? Will that help?

 

[Akhenaten]

You have wrote SO MANY post just to justify you have no time it isn't funny anymore. Even at 300 character per minutes that gotta be a long time spent weakly justifying you have no time.

Exactly. I've never seen anyone have so many breakfasts.

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba, I don't think there's anyone contributing to this thread who expects you to ever answer their questions and comments. The case against the authenticity of the shroud is unanswerable by anyone, let alone someone whose knowledge and understanding of the subject are as limited as yours clearly is. What they'd really like is for you to acknowledge this fact, though they know you're never going to do that either.

 

[kerikiwi]

2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.

No, you don't.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, you don't.

Apparently we're supposed to give credit for the time spent on making up and posting nonsense about what the answers might look like if they actually existed.

 

[Dinwar]

- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.

I have no sympathy for you, for two reasons. First, you've had a year. That's ample time to do some basic research. Second, you've had the unmitigated gaul to accuse every researcher who disagrees with you of fraud. If you don't have enough time to do some minimal research, you don't have the time to have an informed opinion, and uninformed opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on.

2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.

99% of our comments can be taken care of if you simply show some evidence of error in the C14 analysis (some REAL error, one that actually has the potential to have a real impact on the results), or failing that admit that the C14 dating disproves your hypothesis. The proliferation of topics is entirely your doing.

3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...

As I said before, narrowing the focus of the conversation isn't bad, necessarily--but that's not all you're doing. You're also bouncing around from one narrow topic to another like Ricochet Rabbit on speed. THAT is resulting in a conversation that you're finding difficult to deal with.

As I told you 6 month ago, stick to the C14.

4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

You've accused a huge number of researchers of fraud merely because they disagree with you. Contempt is the LEAST you can expect from those of us in related fields. Grow up and take your lumps.

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

When you actually start doing some minimal research and stop throwing accusations around, perhaps we will.

And you've entirely confused what's going on here, by the way. We don't have many questions, at least in regards to the shroud. The C14 dating is proof that it's a Medieval artifact. We're simply trying to get YOU to actually engage in a scientific discussion. We've been trying--for A YEAR--to get you to provide any evidence to back up your ideas, not because we have questions about what your side has to say (that was all addressed in the first month) but because, at least for me, I want the lurkers to understand just how far from a scientific debate this is.

Finally, you're STILL attempting to dictate the terms of the conversation to us. This WILL NOT WORK. You DO NOT get to tell us how we can discuss this topic. If you think something we've done violates the MA, report our posts. If you don't like the tone, either walk away or (preferably) address the underlying issue. For me, that'd be your habit of making extremely serious accusations without backing them up with anything. Those are your options. Telling us that we need to play by your rules isn't among them.

 

[IanS]

Jabba - this thread has been going for more than a year now. People did not start off replying to you with dismissive sarcasm and derision.

People have become frustrated and in the end irritated at your refusal to understand such things as the difference between genuine science papers vs. articles of faith written by Christian shroud believers who desperately want the cloth to be physical evidence of their messiah

Let me ask you a very basic but absolutely crucial question here - do you know the difference between real research journals (such as Nature or Radiocarbon) and articles published in such things as shroud magazines, shroud conferences, and commercial shroud books etc.?

If you do not know why papers published in say Nature are real science with real scientifically valid evidence, whereas articles self-published in the proceedings of a shroud conference are most definitely NOT scientific evidence at all, then like the creationists and Flat-Earth-Society you are getting lost at square one and going down the fantasy route instead of the route of verified peer-reviewed science.