Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Pakeha,

- Prior to the dating, the labs would have been worried about contamination affecting the accuracy of the dating in general -- they wouldn't have been focused on 1300 years of contamination. That's why it seems likely to me that they would have rejected that corner -- if they had the option.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Interesting. Even you don't believe you.
Shouldn't that be 2000 years of contamination?
 
Dinwar said:
That's from me. If you assume that the dating is wrong due to contamination, and that the shroud is actually from the time Jesus supposedly lived, you need to account for contamination that would result in an error of 1,300 years, plus or minus a bit.
Click to expand...

His failures of understanding are legion.
 
Have we explored the possibility that the the samples were actually taken from the velcro fastenings used to secure it to it's mountings when it was regularly displayed in the 16th century?

Me just typing that is direct evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, providing beyond-reasonable doubt of shenanigans in the dating process. I shall now publish my research in the esteemed journal, the South Notts Advertiser (deliverers needed in the Bingham, Gotham and Whatton-le-Vale areas). I reckon a half page should be enough and the pony it'll cost me will be money well spent to finally silence the doubters and nay-sayers.
 
John Jones said:
...Why isn't there a facepalm emote?
Click to expand...

Voilà!
facepalmes.gif
 
hughfarey said:
No, no, that's exactly what I didn't say. They knew there would be only one piece, but the position seems not to have been thought about at all.
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- Good. I had misunderstood. I had figured that they knew the general area before the sample was taken. I'll see what I can find out about that.
--- Rich
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- Good. I had misunderstood. I had figured that they knew the general area before the sample was taken. I'll see what I can find out about that.
--- Rich
Click to expand...

Rich:

Please explain why it is not disrespectful (in your words) of you to continue to ignore my questions? If you only intend to relpy to one poster, whynot simply have a PM discussion?
 
Sample Selected

From Rich: But then, it seems to me that doing carbon dating on the shroud would have been so important to them that ultimately, they would take whatever they could get and not complain about it.
hughfarey said:
... Well, that's more than I know. What was important to the burgeoning science of AMS dating was to demonstrate the accuracy of their method, as well as publicising it. Had they thought there was a likelihood of their being inaccurate through no fault of their own, I think Damon and Donahue and the rest would have said so, simply because any later test would have demonstrated that their method was faulty.
Click to expand...
Hugh,

- Good point -- I hadn't thought of that.

- I think, however, that I still think that the chance to date the shroud would have outweighed the labs' concern for accuracy... I don't know much about carbon dating, or carbon daters, but I do know a lot about human nature in general.
- In addition, their concern for accuracy was probably also outweighed by their concern for homogeneity (and in that case, location wasn't as important to them as were the number and sizes of the samples -- which, with the one small piece, would have been just what they wanted). And, the accuracy of their results probably wouldn't be known for numerous years anyway -- if ever.

--- Rich
 
Last edited:
Friendly Debate

Slowvehicle said:
Rich:

Please explain why it is not disrespectful (in your words) of you to continue to ignore my questions? If you only intend to relpy to one poster, whynot simply have a PM discussion?
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,

- By now, I must have left 1000 question/comments unanswered. But then, I've used up almost all my time with the 800 I have answered. And, if I had somehow answered, say, 10 more q/c's, I would likely have generated 100 more.
- And further, I've been answering more than one poster -- but, the ones I've answered have generally been the least disrespectful, and I guess you don't realize it, but your "Oh Rich..." is a way to "talk down" to me (there's a better word for it, but I can't think of it...).

--- Rich
 
Wow.

So your basis for doubting the dating of the shroud is that the scientists were/are corrupt?

You have far overstepped the realm of integrity.

Yoy complain about disrespect while completely insulting the professionals who did the work?
 
On a lighter note in terms of the shroud of Turin. In last Sunday's episode of the TV series The Borgias, one of the medieval families in a effort to profit from the pilgrim trade concocts a shroud that looks exactly like the shroud of Turin. They don't use the name but it is pretty obvious. They also find a way to manufacture the "miracle" of making it weep bloody tears.

I'm sure the shroud gawkers were a bit upset.
 
Jabba said:
From Rich: But then, it seems to me that doing carbon dating on the shroud would have been so important to them that ultimately, they would take whatever they could get and not complain about it.
Hugh,

- Good point -- I hadn't thought of that.

- I think, however, that I still think that the chance to date the shroud would have outweighed the labs' concern for accuracy... I don't know much about carbon dating, or carbon daters, but I do know a lot about human nature in general.
- In addition, their concern for accuracy was probably also outweighed by their concern for homogeneity (and in that case, location wasn't as important to them as were the number and sizes of the samples -- which, with the one small piece, would have been just what they wanted). And, the accuracy of their results probably wouldn't be known for numerous years anyway -- if ever. ...
Click to expand...

Jabba, do you really believe these professionals thought anything was more important than showing the accuracy of their dating method?

Pacal said:
On a lighter note in terms of the shroud of Turin. In last Sunday's episode of the TV series The Borgias, one of the medieval families in a effort to profit from the pilgrim trade concocts a shroud that looks exactly like the shroud of Turin. They don't use the name but it is pretty obvious. They also find a way to manufacture the "miracle" of making it weep bloody tears.

I'm sure the shroud gawkers were a bit upset.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Borgias.
Wonderful patrons of the arts!
Off to find that TV series.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- By now, I must have left 1000 question/comments unanswered. But then, I've used up almost all my time with the 800 I have answered. And, if I had somehow answered, say, 10 more q/c's, I would likely have generated 100 more.
- And further, I've been answering more than one poster -- but, the ones I've answered have generally been the least disrespectful, and I guess you don't realize it, but your "Oh Rich..." is a way to "talk down" to me (there's a better word for it, but I can't think of it...).

--- Rich
Click to expand...

Hey, Rich:

Most of what you "generate" are observations that you are plowing well-tilled ground.

It is dishonest, and rude, and desperate, and disrespectful of you to pretend that a lab would be so desperate to carbon-date a shred of medieval linen that the scientists there would agree to lie about the results, or to cover up problems with the results. The labs tested what they were given, and reported the results after careful thorough, methodical testing (even taking, in one case, the additional step of blinding the prepared samples). Had the samples proved inadequate (too contaminated, too heterogeneous, of questionable chain of possession), the labs involved would have so stated in their reports.

You are so focused on the possibility of a technologically impossible undetectable invisible patch (or "some patching") that you fail to consider the practical problems with your hopes.

-Why has no one, not one single person, who has had actual access to observe, handle, image, or test the mediaval artifact detected the presence of any kind of patching or reweaving, short of the obvious repairs near the image?

-Why would anyone who had the capability to repair or reweave the medieval artifact invisibly, and undetectably, employ such a technique off to the side of the image, while leaving failing-seventh-grade-home-ec-level crude patching near the image"?

-Of what would your invisible, undetectable, unrecorded patch (or "patching") have to be constructed, in order to produce a medieval date for a first-century artifact?

-Why do you complain about the provenance of the observed,tested linen samples, while accepting uncritically kitchen-sink chemistry allegedly performed upon alleged bootleg samples, with no evidence of how the samples were taken, stored, or treated before they were "tested"?

-Why do you question the motives, techniques, protocols, and results of persons employing a technique that you, by your own admission, do not understand?

-How can you not consider outright accusations of incompetence, dishonesty, conspiracy, or some combination of the three, "disrespectful"?

ETA: if you found my address "disrespectful", why not say so? "Oh, Rich" is not "talking down" to you, but a gently polite way of requesting your attention, and implying that you might not be considering some aspect or aspects of the issue I am addressing. I will eschew the form in the future...in exchange, will you drop the silly pretense that you can "manage" the "debate"?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
From Rich: But then, it seems to me that doing carbon dating on the shroud would have been so important to them that ultimately, they would take whatever they could get and not complain about it.
Hugh,

- Good point -- I hadn't thought of that.

- I think, however, that I still think that the chance to date the shroud would have outweighed the labs' concern for accuracy... I don't know much about carbon dating, or carbon daters, but I do know a lot about human nature in general.
- In addition, their concern for accuracy was probably also outweighed by their concern for homogeneity (and in that case, location wasn't as important to them as were the number and sizes of the samples -- which, with the one small piece, would have been just what they wanted). And, the accuracy of their results probably wouldn't be known for numerous years anyway -- if ever.

--- Rich
Click to expand...
I must agree with what others have said in various ways. This is complete codswallop, libelous, and entirely unsupported by any fact.

The labs were concerned with accuracy first. Your post assumes them to be publicity seeking liars and frauds.

Your argument is vacuous, your comments are far more than disrespectful, and your continued clinging to refuted speculation is dishonest.
 
From a scientist perspective, here is what I would say:

the opportunity to date the shroud would be a HUGE honor, and one that anyone would love to be able to do. It's a very famous historical artifact, and therefore being known as the one who dates the shroud would make one very famous. If I were in the business of dating the shroud, I'd love to do it.

That being said, as has been noted, given that opportunity, one also has a responsibility of doing it right. This is especially true in a high profile case like this. If you are going to be the ones that put a date on the shroud, you better be darn sure that it is right, because just as it can make you famous, you get it wrong and suddenly you are infamous, and everyone knows you messed it up, leaving you with no credibility anymore. Therefore, you are going to go balls to the wall to make sure everything is right.

This is not a random sample that field clowns like Dinwar sent you, with nothing much hinging on the outcome and no one interested but maybe the 20 people who care about the journal article that he wants to write. This is THE Shroud. You are about to make history.

But here is where it all falls apart for Jabba: You are about to make history...regardless of what you find. It doesn't matter whether you find a date of 0 BC or 1300 AD, the world is going to jump at your answer. Now, you WOULD probably prefer that the date come out to something like 0 - 100 BC or 1250-1350 AD, as opposed to something like 600 AD, or 1000 BC, because 0 or 1300 would give you a clean answer, and although a date of 600 AD wouldn't necessarily tarnish anything, it would create a puzzle that needs more explanation. So if there is any "bias" in that regard, it is in hoping for a clear-cut answer of 0 AD or medieval.

However, given that, it wouldn't matter if it were 0 AD or medieval. Either of them would be a very significant answer, with very important consequences. You show it is medieval, that is the nail in the coffin. You show it is 0 AD and suddenly you shown that this thing HAS been floating around since the time of Jesus, supposedly. That's very intriguing, and YOU were the one to show it. That would be a huge achievement for any scientist.

The most important part is that all of this is predicated on you getting the answer right. If you botch it, there is no recovering. All the eyes of the world are on you, you need to get it right, and that is your #1 priority. If you are concerned about that, you don't do it. The stakes are way too high to fail.
 
Jabba said:
...the possible need for some sort of REPAIR in that corner (given the likely amount of handling) does seem significant, and the possibility of near invisible repair (given the research claiming evidence of such repair within and around the sample) also seems significant to me. Consequently, I don’t think that we can just dismiss the near invisible patch explanation.
- I’m not saying that the sample IS comprised of (or even just includes) a near invisible patch – but, I am saying that such is still a reasonable possibility (amongst several other reasonable possibilities re weakness in the dating process …).

- And again, for the moment, I’m just trying to show “direct” evidence of reasonable doubt re the rigor of the overall dating process, so that you guys will consider my “indirect” evidence -- which, I think, is my conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...


1. Direct evidence for a lack of any patch/repair in the sample region:

1.1. The radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural color bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region. (A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis by John P. Jackson; Turin Shroud Center of Colorado; May 5, 2008)


2. Indirect evidence for a lack of any patch/repair in the sample region:

2.1. The textile experts who directly examined the shroud specifically for the purpose of determining the presence of a patch/repair did not find any evidence.

2.1.1. The sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." (Damon et al, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615)

2.1.2. A patch/repair conducted with "even the most successful execution can ultimately not conceal the operation completely to the trained eye, and it will always be unequivocally visible on the reverse
of the fabric." (Flury-Lemberg, The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality)

2.1.3. Textile experts Gabriel Vial and Mechthild Flury-Lemberg confirmed the sample was taken from the original cloth, and that "neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found." (Flury-Lemberg, The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality)

2.1.4. Radiocarbon dating expert Professor Timothy Jull and a textile expert found that the area has "no evidence of a repair." (R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527)
 
Jabba: Can you explain precisely how the scientist's "bias" would effect the objective measurements that is the dating process? No? And yet, despite being shown precisely why your "bias" claim is a non-issue, you continue to trot it out here as though it had some merit.

Surely, the honest thing to do at this point would be to acknowledge that you have nothing but your desperate belief and slink off to a site where facts don't matter. You have nothing left here but further embarrassment to yourself.
 
Summary of Jabba's Current Argument:

1. A lot of people touched the corners so the sampling area was a bad choice even if scientists who actually know what they're talking about say otherwise.

2. There exists an invisible patch that no one has ever detected anywhere at any time, that experts say is impossible, that was placed in the most illogical portion of the shroud, and that the experts who inspected the shroud and sample site overlooked.

3. Scientists whose reputation rides on their accuracy cast that aside by biasing the test in favor of a medieval date even if this makes no scientific or logical sense.

And to be clear, Jabba, I have exactly zero respect for this argument. That lack of respect is completely separate from any disrespect for you; the argument collapse all by itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom