Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Monza]

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.

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?

You're making a grievous leap of logic here. Why do you assume that a middle section is more representative of the whole than a corner section? This is not a T-bone steak where the middle is at one condition and the ends at another with some gradient throughout. Consider the original manufacture of the cloth, regardless of when it was made. It was made on a loom in a rectangular shape. There is the middle section, the not-so-middle sections, the edge sections, and the corner sections. They are all the same. The only way they can be different is if some of it was cut/torn/burned off and another small piece of cloth (a patch) was put in its place. In fact, this was actually done on more than location of the shroud. But why is the corner more apt to have this done than, say, one of the not-so-middle sections? Heck, I would think that the middle section would be the most likely location of a patch. Now realize that the patches are visible and were documented at the time they were done.

Are you really arguing that there is an as yet unknown method for creating an undetectable patch?

And that this was done without any record of it?

And that, if the above two items are true, it is more likely it was done at one of the corners?

And that, if the above three items are true, this just happened to be the place where the C14 sample was taken?




Really?

 

[John Jones]

You're making a grievous leap of logic here. Why do you assume that a middle section is more representative of the whole than a corner section? This is not a T-bone steak where the middle is at one condition and the ends at another with some gradient throughout. Consider the original manufacture of the cloth, regardless of when it was made. It was made on a loom in a rectangular shape. There is the middle section, the not-so-middle sections, the edge sections, and the corner sections. They are all the same. The only way they can be different is if some of it was cut/torn/burned off and another small piece of cloth (a patch) was put in its place. In fact, this was actually done on more than location of the shroud. But why is the corner more apt to have this done than, say, one of the not-so-middle sections? Heck, I would think that the middle section would be the most likely location of a patch. Now realize that the patches are visible and were documented at the time they were done.

Are you really arguing that there is an as yet unknown method for creating an undetectable patch?

And that this was done without any record of it?

And that, if the above two items are true, it is more likely it was done at one of the corners?

And that, if the above three items are true, this just happened to be the place where the C14 sample was taken?




Really?

He's got it in his head that since the shroud has been held by its edges and corners, that fingerprints and body oils and whatnot will give those edges a more recent ¹⁴C date, despite the fact that THE SAMPLES WERE CLEANED BEFORE THE DATING WAS DONE.

Plus the weight ratio of contaminant to shroud would have to be about even or better (IIRC) AFTER CLEANING to have the effect his worship of the shroud requires.


It's just nuts.

 

[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.

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.

HighRiser,
- It confused me as well.
- I guess that hilites don't get transferred in quotes. The original statement comes from post #7494. In the first sentence "might" was hilited, in the second sentence, "clearly preferred” was hilited. Hugh was saying that objective scientists might prefer multiple samples from multiple locations, while I was saying that they would clearly prefer multiple samples from multiple locations. That’s the difference.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

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

Ward,
- But apparently 1) it was displayed hundreds of times over the centuries; 2) when displayed it was held by men; and 3) that was one of the corners always held. I'll be asking Russ Breault about that.
--- Jabba

 

[Belz...]

Hugh,

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

All feeling, no thinking.

 

[zooterkin]

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

HighRiser,
- It confused me as well.
- I guess that hilites don't get transferred in quotes. The original statement comes from post #7494. In the first sentence "might" was hilited, in the second sentence, "clearly preferred” was hilited. Hugh was saying that objective scientists might prefer multiple samples from multiple locations, while I was saying that they would clearly prefer multiple samples from multiple locations. That’s the difference.
--- Jabba

Perhaps you should learn to use the multiquote function, as you've been advised more than once.

 

[zooterkin]

Ward,
- But apparently 1) it was displayed hundreds of times over the centuries; 2) when displayed it was held by men; and 3) that was one of the corners always held.

And? What earthly difference do you suggest that would make to the result?

 

[Dinwar]

Ward,
- But apparently 1) it was displayed hundreds of times over the centuries; 2) when displayed it was held by men; and 3) that was one of the corners always held. I'll be asking Russ Breault about that.
--- Jabba

No one's denying any of that. In fact, the cleaning methods were specifically to address that.

Secondly, unless you argue that the weight of the oil residue exceeded the weight of the cloth itself it's not sufficient to give you 1,300 years of contamination. We did the math, and you've yet to criticize it (or even, for that matter, to acknowledge it).

 

[hugh farey]

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?

No, not really; I'm still thinking that the little matter of where to snip the sample from seems not to have been decided - maybe not even thought about - until the scissors were waving. I'm trying to think of two hours worth of reasons for not deciding!

 

[wollery]

HighRiser,
- It confused me as well.
- I guess that hilites don't get transferred in quotes. The original statement comes from post #7494. In the first sentence "might" was hilited, in the second sentence, "clearly preferred” was hilited. Hugh was saying that objective scientists might prefer multiple samples from multiple locations, while I was saying that they would clearly prefer multiple samples from multiple locations. That’s the difference.
--- Jabba

When I was writing my first paper my PhD supervisor gave me a very good bit of advice. I'd written something along the lines of, "Such objects are clearly less common...."

He said, "Never say that something is clear. If it is then you don't need to say that it is, and if it isn't then you look like an idiot for saying it."

Jabba, it's not clear why the scientists would prefer samples from multiple locations. Could you explain it please?

 

[hugh farey]

Ward,
- But apparently 1) it was displayed hundreds of times over the centuries; 2) when displayed it was held by men; and 3) that was one of the corners always held. I'll be asking Russ Breault about that.
--- Jabba

I'm thinking about that too. More recently it has been displayed roughly every ten years. If that was consistent, its only been displayed 70 times since 1300. Of course, it might have been brought out more often in the past. Say every ten years since the fire (1530 to 2010: 50 or so) but once a year before that (1300 to 1530: 230). Make it a generous 300? And didn't the bishops who held it wear gloves? And, as I asked before, did they hold it that far down?
Well, it's all speculation, but quite interesting, don't you think?

 

[tsig]

When I was writing my first paper my PhD supervisor gave me a very good bit of advice. I'd written something along the lines of, "Such objects are clearly less common...."

He said, "Never say that something is clear. If it is then you don't need to say that it is, and if it isn't then you look like an idiot for saying it."

Jabba, it's not clear why the scientists would prefer samples from multiple locations. Could you explain it please?

If they had taken the samples from multiple locations then Jabba would be citing that as a cause for doubt.

 

[catsmate]

Ward,
- But apparently 1) it was displayed hundreds of times over the centuries; 2) when displayed it was held by men; and 3) that was one of the corners always held. I'll be asking Russ Breault about that.
--- Jabba

The shroud samples were cleaned using multiple different techniques devised to remove contamination, as you've had explained to you before, so your desperate "contamination" ploy is worthless.

And why exactly should we take the ramblings of Russ Breault seriously? What are his qualifications in textiles, radiocarbon dating or chemistry? Or anything other than pimping his lectures and publications to gullible believers...........

If they had taken the samples from multiple locations then Jabba would be citing that as a cause for doubt.

Exactly.

 

[pakeha]

...
- 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. ...

Well, this has been explained to you by people who actually DO understand how samples for ¹⁴C dating are taken. what's the problem?

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

Well, not yet, anyway!

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.

Thanks for bringing up this concern, Agatha.

No one's denying any of that. In fact, the cleaning methods were specifically to address that.

Secondly, unless you argue that the weight of the oil residue exceeded the weight of the cloth itself it's not sufficient to give you 1,300 years of contamination. We did the math, and you've yet to criticize it (or even, for that matter, to acknowledge it).

A very good point, Dinwar.
How about it, Jabba?
Have you understood this point about contamination or not?

 

[Akri]

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

I could claim characteristics of you that make it impossible for you to be anything other than a lungfish. They'd be exactly as valid as your claims about the shroud.

 

[applecorped]

Is this feces of an idea still being believed? The mind staggers.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Rich:

"I don't like the medieval date" and "I don't know how ¹⁴C dating works" and "Scientists are more biased than I am" are NOT "indirect evidence" for the "weakness" of the carbon dating...

Of all of the things you allege, which of them has the faintest chance of producing the date you want?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Rich:

What you are not admitting is that it WOULD require a patch that NO ONE, not one single person, who has actually handled or examined the medieval artifact in person, has seen, detected, or even hinted at...a patch completely unlike any of the demonstrable patches actually applied to the cloth...a patch applied in a manner that does not exist, at a time when it was not noticed, in an area of the medieval artifact that did not need patching...

Who could have done such a thing, and for what reason?

ANY explanation of such handiwork is, per se, an accusation of conspiracy.

 

[abaddon]

Rich:

What you are not admitting is that it WOULD require a patch that NO ONE, not one single person, who has actually handled or examined the medieval artifact in person, has seen, detected, or even hinted at...a patch completely unlike any of the demonstrable patches actually applied to the cloth...a patch applied in a manner that does not exist, at a time when it was not noticed, in an area of the medieval artifact that did not need patching...

Who could have done such a thing, and for what reason?

ANY explanation of such handiwork is, per se, an accusation of conspiracy.

^^This.

Somehow, a patch was made which nobody could detect, ever. Somehow, 700 years later, scientists and textile experts were guided to that invisible patch, that nobody could detect, to oddly take their sample from that very same spot that nobody could detect. Having been directed to that invisible and undetectable spot, they then proceeded to test the sample of...something, and get the wrong result. What they should have done is take wholesale chunks out of whatever areas Jabba decides are appropriate, ruining the artefact in the process. And when that wanton destruction destroys the relic, Jabba will simply claim it was done wrong, secure in the knowledge that the thing is destroyed and there is nothing left to test.

 

[John Jones]

I'm thinking about that too. More recently it has been displayed roughly every ten years. If that was consistent, its only been displayed 70 times since 1300. Of course, it might have been brought out more often in the past. Say every ten years since the fire (1530 to 2010: 50 or so) but once a year before that (1300 to 1530: 230). Make it a generous 300? And didn't the bishops who held it wear gloves? And, as I asked before, did they hold it that far down?
Well, it's all speculation, but quite interesting, don't you think?

Do you think that Jabba can recognize when someone like yourself is having a bit of a laugh at his expense?