Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

This raises some interesting questions: has the shroud ever been tested for traces of fermented frogpiss? Could fermented frogpiss have thrown off the dating results? If you had enough frogs, could you make an (almost) invisible patch out of fermented frogpiss?

Could we...distill...the frogpiss into kikkerlikker (served in a linen-wrapped glass)?

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[John Jones]

Well, he hasn't so far, so I don't see anything to be gained by second-guessing what he might do next.

I'm not trying to gain anything.

If, after the passage of time, Hugh hasn't reversed himself without objective reason, I'll be happy to eat those words and confess that my cynicism was inappropriate, unwarranted, and just plain wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Kikkerlikker.jpg[/qimg]​

Mighty is Pharaoh (may he post forever)!

It comes with a stone sealer that has to be rolled away, right?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mighty is Pharaoh (may he post forever)!

It comes with a stone sealer that has to be rolled away, right?

Every third day.

 

[pakeha]

... Someone, somewhere, once, almost certainly erroneously, described Isabel Piczek as a particle physicist, and the epithet has stuck to her so firmly that 96% of internet mentions of her include that epithet. Don't you find that extraordinary? I should like to find out who started it, and whether it was a mistake or a deliberate obfuscation.

It IS extraordinary and goes to illustrate how gullible the Shroudies are, doesn't it?

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Kikkerlikker.jpg[/qimg]​

Brilliant, Oh Pharaoh, brilliant.

 

[catsmate]

Meh the shroudies still cite Ray Rogers and his garbage science, Max Frei and his fraudulent pollen claims and even the scammer Dimitri Kouznetsov, so it'd hardly surprising they'd stick to any claim, no matter how fraudulent, that would appear to reinforce their beliefs.

 

[pakeha]

Very true, catsmate1, very true.
I recall being convinced by the pollen claim when I first heard of it.

But back to Jabba's posted claim
"- So far, it seems to me pretty clear that the main factor in determining where and how many samples would be taken from the shroud was the reluctance on the part of the Church to further "desecrate" a sacred artefact. They were risking a lot letting the shroud be carbon dated at all -- and just where the sample would be taken from, and how much would be taken, shouldn't have had anything to do with the Church's reasonable fear that the shroud wasn't the real thing."

catsmate1, you've posted up a great deal about the negotiations leading up to the taking of the samples.
How would you define the Archbishop of Turin's attitude about dating the TS?
Did he treat it as a sacred relic or just another item in the Cathedral's inventory?

And the money.
For example, who was the ultimate authority in giving the go-ahead for the payment of those these labs' work?
Who signed the cheques?

 

[catsmate]

Very true, catsmate1, very true.
I recall being convinced by the pollen claim when I first heard of it.

Yeah, superficially convincing until the evidence for fraud becomes apparent.
And still the shroudies cite him.............

"- So far, it seems to me pretty clear that the main factor in determining where and how many samples would be taken from the shroud was the reluctance on the part of the Church to further "desecrate" a sacred artefact. They were risking a lot letting the shroud be carbon dated at all -- and just where the sample would be taken from, and how much would be taken, shouldn't have had anything to do with the Church's reasonable fear that the shroud wasn't the real thing."

Indeed. As I've pointed out before, and Jabba and co have ignored, the scientists were far more concerned about making sure the tests were valid that the church and STURP.

catsmate1, you've posted up a great deal about the negotiations leading up to the taking of the samples.
How would you define the Archbishop of Turin's attitude about dating the TS?
Did he treat it as a sacred relic or just another item in the Cathedral's inventory?

That's interesting. I can't make a definitive statement but I believe Ballestrero was quite enthusiastic about the shroud about publicising the shroud. He became archbishop of Turin in 1977 and initiated a new programme of public exhibition and persuaded the pope (Paul VI) to attend. The then cardinal of Venice, later pope John Paul I, was also supposed to visit.
However Ballestrero was also supportive of scientific analysis, he arranged the 1978 examination; his opposition to the early requests for carbon dating appears to be genuinely motivated by a desire to avoid damage to the cloth.
His acceptance of the carbon dating was far easier than many others, including some of the former STURP group.
Overall I'd say he saw it as a major artifact in his care, and a money spinner, but wasn't as deeply committed to it as many of the shroudies.

For example, who was the ultimate authority in giving the go-ahead for the payment of those these labs' work?
Who signed the cheques?

Hmm, tricky. IIRR the labs performed the testing gratis, and paid for some of the expenses, with the church, in the form of Ballestrero, funding the rest.

 

[Akhenaten]

<dross>

- So far, it seems to me pretty clear that the main factor in determining where and how many samples would be taken from the shroud was the reluctance on the part of the Church to further "desecrate" a sacred artefact. They were risking a lot letting the shroud be carbon dated at all -- and just where the sample would be taken from, and how much would be taken, shouldn't have had anything to do with the Church's reasonable fear that the shroud wasn't the real thing.

Setting aside that the above sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-claim is internally contradictory, I find your cognisance of the Church's acknowledgement of possible/probable non-authenticity, even before the C14 testing was conducted, to be particularly revealing.

As others have previously pointed out, shroudism appears very much to have become a cult all of its very own with little, if anything, to do with mainstream Christianity.

I'm not one to complain about such things, but isn't this straight-up heresy?

 

[Dinwar]

Setting aside that the above sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-claim is internally contradictory, I find your cognisance of the Church's acknowledgement of possible/probable non-authenticity, even before the C14 testing was conducted, to be particularly revealing.

As others have previously pointed out, shroudism appears very much to have become a cult all of its very own with little, if anything, to do with mainstream Christianity.

I'm not one to complain about such things, but isn't this straight-up heresy?

Yup. Specifically, it's idol worship. And, quite frankly, magic--I mean, if it was Jesus' burial shroud, so what? What difference would it make? Jesus was very clear and explicite: Salvation, the whole point of his preaching, is only possible through acting according to the will of God. If you're a member of one of the Christ cults it doesn't matter that Jesus touched something--what he said is the important bit. But I suppose it's far easier to worship a bit of cloth than to do some serious self-examination.

 

[Jabba]

Me neither. Let's rule him out as a scientist.

Hugh,
- Sounds good to me.

Riggi was certainly not Ballestrero's foremost scientist; that was Gonella.

- I have to assume you're right here. If I ever have the chance, I'll try to look into that relationship some more to see if I was basing my opinion about Riggi on something more than that one sentence somewhere calling him the foremost scientific adviser to Ballestrero...

As a good Catholic, and employed by Ballestrero to wield the scissors, he would have followed the church, but I don't know that he 'represented' it anywhere.

- Here, I think, we just have a good example of a basic problem in debate. It has to do with definitions. I used, "represented," perhaps incorrectly, to mean that Riggi was following the Church's guidelines or dictates in the decision making with which he was charged. So, I think that we agree on this point as well...

Gonella was not a member of the Pontifical Academy, and resented Chagas' authority over the matter of the shroud. When it became apparent that the Pontifical Academy was not going to be involved, he was very protective of 'his' authority over it.

- I'm not sure of your point here; mostly, I was just saying that Gonella was following guidelines, or instructions, from the Church in his promotions and decision making.

I shouldn't bother as I'm afraid they would be wasted on me. The philosophy of the nature of debate doesn't keep me awake at night at all.

- That's a shame.

Quite, so we must try to base all our opinions on primary sources whenever we can.

- Quite.

I think it's important not to divorce scientists from their own cultural contexts. Many dedicated carbon daters would no more have wanted to chop little pieces out of the shroud than many bishops, knowing its importance as an archaeological artefact, regardless of provenance.

- Maybe.

Would objective scientists prefer to test numerous pieces of Christopher Columbus's handkerchief (if such a thing existed), and not just one small piece from an oft handled corner.

- I'm not sure of all you're saying here.
- But, for one thing, I would think that the size of the example in your analogy weakens the analogy -- and, even the emotional reaction to taking numerous samples from a dirty handkerchief might affect our judgment as to the need for numerous samples, and thereby weakens the analogy...
- To be continued...

--- Rich

 

[Dinwar]

Quite, so we must try to base all our opinions on primary sources whenever we can.

I disagree. High-quality secondary sources are more than adequate 99% of the time. In the case of the shroud in particular, the secondary sources are perfectly adequate, as no one has challanged the C14 results. It's advisable to go to the primary sources, yes, but not at the expense of actually drawing conclusions, nor at the expense of valid data.

The issue isn't the nature of the source, but the quality of the data. If the data are true, the sources is fundamentally irrelevant.

Many dedicated carbon daters would no more have wanted to chop little pieces out of the shroud than many bishops, knowing its importance as an archaeological artefact, regardless of provenance.

No "Maybe" here, Jabba. This is standard practice in archaeology, which is the field this falls under. An archaeologist who wants to destroy an artifact in order to date it is an unemployed archaeologist.

Hugh, there's no such thing as a "dedicated carbon dater". You may as well be talking about a dedicated hammerer, or a dedicated spreadsheeter. It's a tool in our toolbox, one that has its uses and also has known limitations.

- But, for one thing, I would think that the size of the example in your analogy weakens the analogy -- and, even the emotional reaction to taking numerous samples from a dirty handkerchief might affect our judgment as to the need for numerous samples, and thereby weakens the analogy...

The size is irrelevant; so long as the sample is representative and large enough to test (a few grams), the size simply doesn't matter. No one has ever shown that the shroud samples aren't representative, and extensive analysis went into determining that they are; therefore, it's irrational to say they were not. Thus, size doesn't matter.

You're also showing how little you know again. After a few hundred years the hankerchief would just be cloth. I've got on my desk right now, sitting no more than three feet away from me, a zip-top bag containing a portion of a packrat midden. This is rat poop, twigs, and leaves held together by crystalized urine. It's also 15,000 years old (the guy who did the carbon dating is the one who took me to the midden so I could collect my sample), and is essentially sterile at this point.

NO archaeologist EVER would worry about the cloth being dirty. Period. The notion is nonsensical, and only possible in those who's knowledge of archaeology comes from bad TV and internet echo chambers.

 

[Jabba]

...- So far, it seems to me pretty clear that the main factor in determining where and how many samples would be taken from the shroud was the reluctance on the part of the Church to further "desecrate" a sacred artefact. They were risking a lot letting the shroud be carbon dated at all -- and just where the sample would be taken from, and how much would be taken, shouldn't have had anything to do with the Church's reasonable fear that the shroud wasn't the real thing.
- Wouldn't objective scientists have preferred testing numerous pieces over the entire shroud, and not just one small piece from an oft handled corner?
--- Rich

...I think it's important not to divorce scientists from their own cultural contexts. Many dedicated carbon daters would no more have wanted to chop little pieces out of the shroud than many bishops, knowing its importance as an archaeological artefact, regardless of provenance. Would objective scientists prefer to test numerous pieces of Christopher Columbus's handkerchief (if such a thing existed), and not just one small piece from an oft handled corner. Possibly, but I doubt if such scientists exist!

Hugh,
- Putting aside your analogy for the moment, you seem to be saying that really objective scientists most-concerned-with-determining-the-real-date-of-the-shroud might prefer to test numerous pieces of it from numerous locations rather than test one small piece from an oft handled corner.
- If so, so far, this is where I would disagree -- I think that truly objective scientists would have clearly preferred multiple samples (several?) from multiple locations.
- Am I understanding your position?
--- Rich

 

[Susheel]

Should we all just withdraw to the smoking room and leave these two alone?

 

[catsmate]

As others have previously pointed out, shroudism appears very much to have become a cult all of its very own with little, if anything, to do with mainstream Christianity.

I'm not one to complain about such things, but isn't this straight-up heresy?

Well there's a tradition in catholicism of accepting the special powers of relics and similar artifacts but the degree to which some shroudies cling to their silly cloth is idolatrous.

Should we all just withdraw to the smoking room and leave these two alone?

Good idea. Jabba seems to be on one of per periodic "ignore all contrary posts" jags.
Perhaps he hopes to seduce hf back into idolatry. I suspect the idea that someone who believed in the shroud could be convinced its a fake by mere facts is deeply disturbing to Jabba.

 

[tsig]

Well there's a tradition in catholicism of accepting the special powers of relics and similar artifacts but the degree to which some shroudies cling to their silly cloth is idolatrous.


Good idea. Jabba seems to be on one of per periodic "ignore all contrary posts" jags.
Perhaps he hopes to seduce hf back into idolatry. I suspect the idea that someone who believed in the shroud could be convinced its a fake by mere facts is deeply disturbing to Jabba.

Armies shoot deserters but capture enemy soldiers.

 

[Jabba]

Debate

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

 

[tsig]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

Oh noes, someone is disrespectful on the internet.

 

[Mister Earl]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

Do you think you're not getting respect because everyone here is jerks, or because it is a response towards your actions, up to and including calling honest scientists liars, even though the evidence shows otherise?