Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Lucian]

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



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?

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone has said that the alleged coins are blood.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

Your doubts about their objectivity are demonstrably on held due to their disagreement with your pet hypothesis.

- 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.

The only reason you're saying this is because the sample taken didn't yield the results you wanted. This has nothing to do with objectivity and in over a year you've failed to demonstrate that the sample location had any impact what so ever on the dating results.

There is too big a chance that an oft handled tiny corner of the shroud would not be representative of the greater shroud.

There is no chance of this at all. It's been demonstrated that it's made of the same material as the cloth, and that any contamination had been removed.

- 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.

You have demonstrated a complete and intollerable ignorance of how the samples were selected. This makes your opinion on this matter worthless.

- Obviously, I don't know much about carbon dating,

Not knowing much would be a huge step up. *I* don't know much about it. You know NOTHING about it.

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.

That's because you don't understand how the samples were chosen, how C14 dating works, or the fact that the stakes ARE NOT high in this regard. Without the C14 dating we could prove that the shroud was a 14th century artifact. The C14 dating is coroboration of what was already known. It's definitive proof that the shroud is not a 1st century artifact, but it's only one line of evidence among several.

The fact that you've turned the shroud into your god does not mean that the rest of us need to worship it. It's an interesting artifact, nothing more.

 

[Belz...]

- 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.

Unholy mother of hell! This is like a very bad episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

How does "less careful selecting" cause a problem with an invisible patch? If it is truly invisible, which it must be since there is absolutely no evidence for it, then no amount of care matters.

As I've said, your invisible patch hypothesis Carries with it some serious implications that you fail to consider.

 

[catsmate]

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

Then why are you wasting our time with this crap again.
You have no "indirect evidence" just like you have no "direct evidence"

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

Dishonest rubbish. The scientific involvement in the selection of the sample area and the sample itself have been discussed at length. Your desperate need for the shroud to be real doesn't effect reality.

 

[HighRiser]

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



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

So, the first statement says science might have preffered multiple locations, right?

Then the second statement says you disagree with the first, and science would have preffered multiple locations, right?

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'd like a clarification, please.

 

[hugh farey]

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

The original plan was not to have the labs' representatives there at all, and from those accounts that have emerged, the argument seems to have been mostly between Riggi and Gonella, so I'll go along with you there. My Flight of Fancy only had the lab representatives commenting in a fairly impartial way!

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.

It's a bit nuanced, but I think that's the position. Harry Gove was definitely annoyed about the final choice.

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.

It rather depends what you mean by a few tiny snippets. Three holes of about 2 square centimetres might be tiny to some people, but unacceptable damage to others. If Donahue et al. felt that their position was compromised by the sample they took, I'm sure that by now, one of them would have said so. Once the authenticitists had raised doubts about the date, it would have been easy for the labs to say, without a stain of their character, that their dating had been impeccable, but that 'the church' had forced a dud sample on them. The fact that no-one has done so is some evidence for supposing that they had no reason to do so.

I'm beginning to wonder about the oft repeated "oft handled" description. The sample site is some 10cm below the upper border of the shroud, and although that corner is missing, at least since the great fire of 1532 it would have been possible to hold the backing cloth rather than the actual shroud. I don't know when it is supposed the corners were cut out, or whether they had been replaced by something else before the great fire, or how many expositions had been held by then, but it may be that that particular section had not, in fact, be handled as often as sometimes supposed.

 

[pgwenthold]

- 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 thought you were claiming there was an invisible patch? That's what you said above.

I don't know about you, but I contend that the far corner of the shroud would be the stupidest place to waste your time doing something as mind-blowingly cool as an invisible patch. Considering that there are non-invisible patches all over the place, they used the greatest technology that has never been replicated on an obscure corner? Of course they didn't.

So explain, again, why it matters who choose the sample? In the paragraph above, you seem to now be implying that it is a problem of contamination from dirt, but you already have been schooled about how this is almost impossible given a) the amount of contamination that would need to be present, and b) the cleaning processes that were used. The only way that much dirt could be causing the measured date is if the labs that did the work are incompetent. Is that what you think? That they don't know how to clean cloth samples?

 

[Dinwar]

It's a bit nuanced, but I think that's the position. Harry Gove was definitely annoyed about the final choice.

Find me a sampling event where that's NOT the case. I've been taking geologic samples for five years now, and I've never been on a job where everyone was happy with the choice of sampling locations.

Once the authenticitists had raised doubts about the date, it would have been easy for the labs to say, without a stain of their character, that their dating had been impeccable, but that 'the church' had forced a dud sample on them.

Not quite true. They'd have to provide some evidence for the samples not being representative of the shroud if they wanted to say the dates weren't any good. They had an opportunity, but again, the mere fact that they were told where to take the sample isn't sufficient to prove that the sample was inappropriate or that it'd yield bad results.

 

[Jabba]

The original plan was not to have the labs' representatives there at all, and from those accounts that have emerged, the argument seems to have been mostly between Riggi and Gonella, so I'll go along with you there. My Flight of Fancy only had the lab representatives commenting in a fairly impartial way!

It's a bit nuanced, but I think that's the position. Harry Gove was definitely annoyed about the final choice.

It rather depends what you mean by a few tiny snippets. Three holes of about 2 square centimetres might be tiny to some people, but unacceptable damage to others. If Donahue et al. felt that their position was compromised by the sample they took, I'm sure that by now, one of them would have said so. Once the authenticitists had raised doubts about the date, it would have been easy for the labs to say, without a stain of their character, that their dating had been impeccable, but that 'the church' had forced a dud sample on them. The fact that no-one has done so is some evidence for supposing that they had no reason to do so.

Hugh,

- You might have a point here, but it seems to me a bit unlikely.

- If a dud sample had been forced upon the labs, they couldn't admit such at the outset and still publish their work... And, if they didn't admit such at the outset, they could hardly admit such after publication.
- My reservation here does depend upon an obsessive desire on the part of the labs to be involved in this project -- but, that does seem like a reasonable possibility -- from Gove's book and from other articles I've read, those ten years were filled with emotionality and back-biting.

I'm beginning to wonder about the oft repeated "oft handled" description. The sample site is some 10cm below the upper border of the shroud, and although that corner is missing, at least since the great fire of 1532 it would have been possible to hold the backing cloth rather than the actual shroud. I don't know when it is supposed the corners were cut out, or whether they had been replaced by something else before the great fire, or how many expositions had been held by then, but it may be that that particular section had not, in fact, be handled as often as sometimes supposed.

- Again, you may have a point, but why would they accept any corner, let alone that corner, if they could have had a sample from the middle instead? I'll see what I can find out about the possibilities you propose, and I do have a contact that should be able to respond knowingly about them. Russ Breault talks a lot about this corner and is very reachable by email. I'll let you know what he says. You might want to write to him yourself. His email is [email protected].

--- Rich

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, the scientists must have got it wrong or fudged the results. The shroud really is the original cloth with Jesus' soul etched on it in some kind of miraculous projection. Therefore the Christian God.

 

[Agatha]

- If a dud sample had been forced upon the labs, they couldn't admit such at the outset and still publish their work... And, if they didn't admit such at the outset, they could hardly admit such after publication.

(1)What is a "dud sample" in this context, and (2)why would the labs have been precluded from calling the sample a dud at any stage in the process, if they were aware of it being a 'dud'?

- My reservation here does depend upon an obsessive desire on the part of the labs to be involved in this project -- but, that does seem like a reasonable possibility -- from Gove's book and from other articles I've read, those ten years were filled with emotionality and back-biting.

(3)Why would any lab have a obsessive desire to be involved in the process, and (4)what evidence do you have that even if a lab had an "obsessive desire" to be part of the dating process, that would have had any effect on the objective dating process?

Again, you may have a point, but why would they accept any corner, let alone that corner, if they could have had a sample from the middle instead?

(5)Do you really think that the custodians of the shroud were prepared to cut a stonking great hole in the middle of the thing? The shroud is not a 1st century artefact but it is still a priceless piece of mediaeval art, and cutting a hole in the middle of it will needlessly damage it. The corners, once properly cleaned, are just as representative of the cloth as any other part of it which is away from patches and scorching.

5 questions, Jabba, numbered for your convenience. I am asking you politely to respond to all of them.

 

[Dinwar]

- If a dud sample had been forced upon the labs, they couldn't admit such at the outset and still publish their work... And, if they didn't admit such at the outset, they could hardly admit such after publication.

False. The scientists could run the samples with the caveat that the results are meaningless (I've seen it done, numerous times). After publication, if they'd found that it was a bad sample they could easily publish a retraction of the original article--EVERY serious journal has a retraction section (it's one of my criteria for selecting serious journals). It's not considered a bad thing in science to admit that new data renders previous studies invalid; it's in fact expected.

My reservation here does depend upon an obsessive desire on the part of the labs to be involved in this project

"obessive desire"?! SERIOUSLY?!?! You've got NO evidence for this. NONE. This is a lie, and slander to boot! C14 labs are THE ONLY PLACE TO HAVE THIS DATING PERFORMED. Acknowledging that you need the facilities to do the tests is hardly "obsessive desire...to be involved".

You wonder why we're not more polite to you? Stop with the lies and slander and false accusations and we'd be a lot nicer to you. As it is, the fact that any of us is willing to speak to you is more than you deserve. The fact that you're not be sued--and I mean the fact that you're not being dragged to court--is us being civil. Because you really could be for this sort of persistant slander. People have gone to court over less.

but why would they accept any corner, let alone that corner, if they could have had a sample from the middle instead?

Because unlike you, they understand how carbon dating works. They know that as long as the cloth is representative--an argument you've failed to provide any evidence against, after a bloody year--it doesn't matter where the cloth comes from. And they understand that snipping bits from all over the cloth has the very real potential to degrade the cloth, possibly even to destroy it. Unlike you, these people actually understood what was involved in this research and took it seriously.

and I do have a contact that should be able to respond knowingly about them.

Oh, this should be rich.

Quick question: How come we're supposed to believe your myserious contact, while you get to dismiss the arguments of experts in the fields under discussion just because you don't like their results?

Russ Breault talks a lot about this corner

I'm willing to bet my second-best sword that the reason you're citing him, Jabba, is because he agrees with you. If he didn't, I'd wager that you'd reject him out of hand.

 

[wardenclyffe]

- Again, you may have a point, but why would they accept any corner, let alone that corner, if they could have had a sample from the middle instead? --- Rich

It might be because carbon daters should always try to take a sample from an area that is the least destructive to the integrity of the original artifact and still is representative of the whole. Since the only patch in the sample area is so invisible that it has not nor ever will be detected (almost suggesting that there's nothing at all to detect), it seems they got a good sample.

Who would have been happy if they cut out one of Jesus' eyes to sample?

Ward

 

[Agatha]

I meant to add to my earlier post, Jabba, has Russ Breault given his permission for you to publish his email address on this public website? This is not the first time you've published an email address or other personal detail on this thread, and this section is viewable by non-members. I hope you have obtained his permission, because it is not just rude but a serious breach of privacy to publish someone's details on the web without their consent.

 

[pgwenthold]

It might be because carbon daters should always try to take a sample from an area that is the least destructive to the integrity of the original artifact and still is representative of the whole. Since the only patch in the sample area is so invisible that it has not nor ever will be detected (almost suggesting that there's nothing at all to detect), it seems they got a good sample.

See my comment above. If they wanted to AVOID an "invisible patch" they couldn't have picked a better spot to sample from. An often handled, out of the way corner is the absolute last place you would put something as incredible as an invisible patch.

 

[Dinwar]

(2)why would the labs have been precluded from calling the sample a dud at any stage in the process, if they were aware of it being a 'dud'?

The labs that did the Mt. St. Helens dating that Creationists love to cite pointed out, in their report, that the protocols the Creationists demanded were inappropriate for the samples taken and therefore the results were not trustworthy. They basically took what can be called a dud sample--they took a sample for a particular isotope group in particular minerals where the closing temperature was completely different from the cooling temperature of the lava (which is the event they were ostensibly measuring). I believe there were some crystals that formed within the magma as well. At any rate, the sample was obviously flawed, in ways that objectively prevented an accurate date from being determined. The labs that called them out on it were not significantly harmed by doing so (some people questioned why they bothered, but "They were a client" is more or less sufficient).

So yeah, dating labs are allowed to say "We'll run it, but it's not going to work". They're also allowed to publish criticisms of the research methodologies for the samples they ran. Jabba's making crap up.

 

[hugh farey]

My reservation here does depend upon an obsessive desire on the part of the labs to be involved in this project -- but, that does seem like a reasonable possibility -- from Gove's book and from other articles I've read, those ten years were filled with emotionality and back-biting.

That's not really how I understand it. The carbon dating community was quite small, and the AMS community smaller still, and they all seemed, from the reports of their various conferences, to have got on quite well. The original agreed protocol does not seem to have been forged amid emotionality and backbiting. True, there were a certain amount of sour grapes once the Pontifical academy had reduced the seven labs to three, but although there was a lot of pleading with the Vatican to reverse the decision, I do not find that this was on the grounds of the incompetence of the three chosen labs, or that there was animosity between them and the rejected ones. Harry Gove was I think invited by Prof Damon to witness the Tucson process. Gove's main objection was that there was a danger of a ridiculous outlying result which would render the whole tripartite operation suspect (the Zurich lab having produced just such a result during the previous comparison experiment organised by the British Museum). When no such outlier appeared, he accepted the dating.

Again, you may have a point, but why would they accept any corner, let alone that corner, if they could have had a sample from the middle instead? I'll see what I can find out about the possibilities you propose, and I do have a contact that should be able to respond knowingly about them.

The only sensible way they could have had a sample from the middle would be to cut it out from under a patch, and the possibility that the fire had affected the date (or, even if the scientists thought that there was no such possibility, the suspicion by the 'authenticists' that it might) seems to have driven them back to the old 'Raes' corner.

 

[TjW]

The only sensible way they could have had a sample from the middle would be to cut it out from under a patch, and the possibility that the fire had affected the date (or, even if the scientists thought that there was no such possibility, the suspicion by the 'authenticists' that it might) seems to have driven them back to the old 'Raes' corner.

The tone here seems to imply criticism of a decision to take a sample from a spot that even the 'authenticists' agreed would give a valid result, rather than sampling some area that would give them reason to disagree with the result.

Why?

 

[wardenclyffe]

I'm beginning to wonder about the oft repeated "oft handled" description.

I agree. It's not like this thing was run up a flag-pole every morning and taken down again at night and folded into a triangle by people who just finished eating fried chicken without napkins.

Ward