Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[abaddon]

Could it be that Jabba inadvertently left out the bolded word? The sentence then seems to make sense. Sense in that the sentence can be followed with respect to what he said previously, not sense in any logical meaning.

No, I think it more likely that Jabba will say ANYTHING if he thinks it supports the shroud. It is unlikely he considers consistency as a criteria given his post history.

 

[slyjoe]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing....snip

2) You guys wanted me to focus on the carbon dating and why I thought it was wrong.
3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined. I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).

...snip

How is this "indirect evidence", and not a bald assertion followed by incredulity?

 

[pgwenthold]

- Here's how I see the relevancy of what I've been doing.
...
3) I explained that what I considered to be my primary reasons for thinking it wrong, was what I called "indirect" evidence -- the date the dating determined. I don't think it would have been possible for a 14th century artisan to have created such a piece of art (I have several reasons for thinking that).

BTW, I've asked this before, and you, of course, ignored it: has anyone ever reproduced the image on the shroud, or anything even remotely resembling it, by wrapping a cloth around an actual body? I don't mean by draping it over a relief image, but by wrapping it around a body. Preferably one that has a head sheet already on it, as Jesus's body was described to have?

Unless you can actually show that, and I mean really show it and not just invoke a miracle, then your whole "I don't think it would have been possible" claim is extremely dishonest.

 

[Akri]

Unless you can actually show that, and I mean really show it and not just invoke a miracle, then your whole "I don't think it would have been possible" claim is extremely dishonest.

But it has blood* on it! Where would a 14th century artist get blood? Everyone knows that the 14th century was RIGHT in the middle of the Hemoglobin Shortage in Europe. You think some random artist was able to afford the astronomical rates Argentina was charging for blood at the time? Don't be ridiculous.





*according to Jabba

 

[catsmate]

How is this "indirect evidence", and not a bald assertion followed by incredulity?

Well Jabba tries to claim that <insert debunked nonsense> proves (for Jabba's value of proof) that the shroud is older than 1350 and therefore the radiocarbon dating is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

"Evidence" means "what I believe", now ?

 

[Jabba]

Sample Selected

This is the part I am asking you to explain, though. HOW does all what you said above result in a more recent date of the shroud?

You have asserted that the measured samples are not representative of the rest of the shroud. How do supposed "weaknesses...in the 10 years of the carbon dating process" make the sample non-representative of the shroud?

It's not enough just to claim that there was something amiss about the process, you actually have to explain how that leads to an incorrect date. For example, if you want to invoke an invisible patch, you have to explain how the sampling process that was used was more likely to result in choosing an invisible patch. If you can't, then why does it matter how it was chosen?

pgwenthold,
- I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if there ARE patches on the shroud other than the obvious ones, the “rigor” of the carbon dating process could determine whether or not they're detected.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

But it has blood* on it! Where would a 14th century artist get blood? Everyone knows that the 14th century was RIGHT in the middle of the Hemoglobin Shortage in Europe. You think some random artist was able to afford the astronomical rates Argentina was charging for blood at the time? Don't be ridiculous.





*according to Jabba

Akri,
- Some of the claimed characteristics of the stains precludes the possibility of the stains simply being blood painted on.
--- Jabba

 

[Belz...]

 

[catsmate]

pgwenthold,
- I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if there ARE patches on the shroud other than the obvious ones, the “rigor” of the carbon dating process could determine whether or not they're detected.
--- Jabba

Akri,
- Some of the claimed characteristics of the stains precludes the possibility of the stains simply being blood painted on.
--- Jabba

Will you be supporting these assertions with evidence?

 

[pakeha]

pgwenthold,
- I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if there ARE patches on the shroud other than the obvious ones, the “rigor” of the carbon dating process could determine whether or not they're detected. ...

Jabba, could you explain what you mean by "rigor", please?

Akri,
- Some of the claimed characteristics of the stains precludes the possibility of the stains simply being blood painted on. ...

Dabbled, spilled, dripped, soaked.... so many possiblities.
Including that's it's not blood after all.
Just as the coins aren't, either.
Remember the links in the OP?

 

[pgwenthold]

pgwenthold,
- I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if there ARE patches on the shroud other than the obvious ones, the “rigor” of the carbon dating process could determine whether or not they're detected.
--- Jabba

So you are going with the "invisible patch" nonsense yet?

But even if there is an "invisible patch" why does it matter who selected the sample? Whether it was church reps, scientists, or done by darts, you are just as likely to hit an invisible patch.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that someone knew about the presence of this invisible patch and deliberately selected that area for examination, but didn't tell anyone about it?

BTW, that's called a conspiracy...

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1054&pictureid=7787[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1054&pictureid=7789[/qimg]

Will you be supporting these assertions with evidence?

catsmate,
- You guys don't want me to spend my time (and yours) on the indirect evidence re the weakness of the carbon dating.
--- jabba

 

[Jabba]

So you are going with the "invisible patch" nonsense yet?

But even if there is an "invisible patch" why does it matter who selected the sample? Whether it was church reps, scientists, or done by darts, you are just as likely to hit an invisible patch.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that someone knew about the presence of this invisible patch and deliberately selected that area for examination, but didn't tell anyone about it?

BTW, that's called a conspiracy...

pgwenthold,
- If the Church was totally responsible for the selection, they wouldn't have been as scientifically careful about it -- their basic concern would have been physical desecration of the shroud.
- This would not require any conspiracy.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Yes. Well, sort of. What was the two-hour argument about, I wonder?

Flight of Fancy coming up...

Riggi (a scientist, waving his scissors about): We should take a sample from underneath one of the larger patches, so that the appearance of the shroud is maintained.
Gonella (a scientist): We can't help that. The patches cover mostly charred material and we must take the sample well away from possible contamination.
Riggi (a scientist):But then we should have to take a very small bit, whereas we could cut quite a long strip from under a patch, and there's no reason why being burnt should affect the carbon dating.
Gonella (a scientist): Scraps of charcoal from other sources will be indistinguishable from charred shroud and would affect the dating. We will take as small as possible, but as large as necessary. If we take it from the already damaged Raes corner it will cause minimum disruption to the appearance.
Riggi (a scientist): Not all the material under the patches is charred, and we could easily trim away all the charred fragments both from the shroud and from any other contaminents. Anyway that corner is covered in greasy fingerprints and will be just as contaminated as a piece under a patch.
Donahue (a scientist): Do get a move on. I've got a plane to catch. We can easily clean off any contamination wherever you cut it from.
... and so on for 115 minutes ...
Archbishop (the custodian): This has gone on long enough. It's my decision and I support Gonella.
Tite (a scientist): Thank God for that.
Riggi (a scientist): It will ruin the shroud, but if you insist... [he measures out an 81mm x 16mm strip and cuts it out].

Hugh,
- Somewhere, I read that the "observers" on the "bleachers" were not involved in the debate about where to cut. That was strictly between Riggi, Gonella and the two textile experts...
- I'll keep looking for the source, but since no one seems to know what the debate was about, the claim that the observers were not involved seems reasonable.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

catsmate,
- You guys don't want me to spend my time (and yours) on the indirect evidence re the weakness of the carbon dating. ...

Indirect evidence?
Like what, exactly?
In any case, Jabba, we'll go over it as often as it takes to show any lurking readers why it's nonsense.
After all, how many times have we gone over it already?

Unless, of course, you've come up with something new to show us?

pgwenthold,
- If the Church was totally responsible for the selection, they wouldn't have been as scientifically careful about it -- their basic concern would have been physical desecration of the shroud.
- This would not require any conspiracy.
--- Jabba

What does physical desecration mean here?
Do you think the Archbishop of Turin wasn't interested in obtaining a true result from the ¹⁴C dating?
If so, you're entering the realm of conspiracy, after all.

 

[Acleron]

"Evidence" means "what I believe", now ?

For those that KNOW the Truth, hasn't it always been so?

 

[Belz...]

catsmate,
- You guys don't want me to spend my time (and yours) on the indirect evidence re the weakness of the carbon dating.
--- jabba

That's right, as you've shown that you have no idea what direct or indirect evidence would be. So far all you have is pure speculation, based on your wishes.

What _I_ want from you is an admission that you are wrong.

 

[Dinwar]

catsmate,
- You guys don't want me to spend my time (and yours) on the indirect evidence re the weakness of the carbon dating.
--- jabba

If your "indirect evidence" had anything to do with the strength or weakness of carbon dating we wouldn't mind it. What we don't like is you saying random garbage and asserting that "therefore C14 dating is wrong".

- If the Church was totally responsible for the selection, they wouldn't have been as scientifically careful about it -- their basic concern would have been physical desecration of the shroud.

Since the "invisible patch that can only be detected by shroudies looking at photographs" idea has been thuroughly demolished, the Church's sampling location wouldn't matter. First off, they WERE NOT totally responsible for selecting the sample location; they made the final choice, perhaps, but it was in consultation with radiometric dating labs and after years of discussion and analysis.

And even if it wasn't, so long as the sample was representative it's irrelevant. Since we've proven there was no patch, the sample was therefore representative. That means that who selected the sample point does not matter.

- Somewhere, I read that the "observers" on the "bleachers" were not involved in the debate about where to cut.

Imagine that--people who don't know what they're talking about were ignored when selecting the sample. I can tell you from personal experience that I do this all the time. It's SOP for sampling of any kind.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba
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

...Not quite. I think it true that up to a limit the more of an artefact is sputtered away in an AMS machine the more accurate will be the assessment of its age, and that in the case of the shroud in 1988 that probably amounted to a fair chunk of cloth. However I don't think anybody involved was, or should have been, that objective. If, say, Donahue or Hall had been left alone in the room with a pair of scissors and free rein about how much and where to take their samples, would they have done any different from what actually happened, I wonder?...

Hugh,

- If I understand what you're saying, I guess I just have to accept that I disagree with you regarding the objectivity of the scientists involved.
- I think it quite reasonable for objective scientists to "demand" (if they have the option to demand) at least one tiny snippet from the truly main body of the shroud, rather than one tiny snippet from an oft handled and suspicious corner of the shroud. In fact, I think that a few small snippets from different locations on the main body of the cloth would be much more scientific -- and still moral. There is too big a chance that an oft handled tiny corner of the shroud would not be representative of the greater shroud.
- I'm thinking that the scientists making the decisions at the end, either were not that objective, or they refrained from demanding more because they just didn't have the option.
- Obviously, I don't know much about carbon dating, but it's hard for me to believe that "moral," but truly objective scientists, would think that a few tiny snippets would be too much for which to ask when the steaks(sp?) were so high.

- Hopefully, that communicates.

--- Jabba