Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip-for-space

Fascinating.

Thanks!

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
- One step at a time. Blood on the shroud is a step in the right direction, and has at least one positive (for me) implication.
--- Jabba

Mr. Savage:

In your research, have you ever come across any information about whether the medieval linen was ever sized?

 

[catsmate]

I'm mostly lurking here, but the blood is a red-herring, as it has been repeated by several people here. There are serious problems that you need to overcome for the question of blood to be even a minor step towards your goal of proving veracity. I'll use the word "prove" and "proof" as a shorthand for "overwhelming evidence":

1. You have to prove that there is blood.
2. You have to prove that this blood could only come from wounds.
3. You have to provide a viable mechanism of how blood would continue to flow from wounds hours after death.
4. You have to adequately explain how the blood could be there after the body had been washed.
5. Then you have to prove that this blood could not be placed there by any other process during the 14th century. This means that you have to rule out:
- forgers placing blood on purpose,
- forgers using a dead body,
- forgers using a pious crucifixion re-enacter.
6. If you have managed to provide overwhelming evidence for all of the above, you will have to prove that this blood comes from the 1st century.
7. Even if you managed all of the above, you would have to prove that the blood comes from Christ, and not from one of the thousands of crucified people from that period.

Can we move on please?

Might I suggest 1A: Show that the blood was human, rather than animal blood.

 

[pakeha]

Fascinating.

Thanks!

Seconded.
And bookmarked.

 

[hugh farey]

Mr. Savage:
In your research, have you ever come across any information about whether the medieval linen was ever sized?

In the absence of Jabba's reply, can I have a go? The answer as far as I know is that the cloth was not sized. Every reference to size I can find refers to rabbit-skin glue - I cannot begin to imagine why or how rabbits were found to serve this purpose so well. Also, sizing seems to be followed as a matter of course by priming, usually with gesso, although gesso itself seems to be a mixture of rabbit skin glue, chalk and "a pigment." Well, whatever, it is, it would suggest that the entire cloth would be covered in animal protein, for which there is no evidence on the shroud, and particles of chalk, which there also don't appear to be.

 

[Slowvehicle]

In the absence of Jabba's reply, can I have a go? The answer as far as I know is that the cloth was not sized. Every reference to size I can find refers to rabbit-skin glue - I cannot begin to imagine why or how rabbits were found to serve this purpose so well. Also, sizing seems to be followed as a matter of course by priming, usually with gesso, although gesso itself seems to be a mixture of rabbit skin glue, chalk and "a pigment." Well, whatever, it is, it would suggest that the entire cloth would be covered in animal protein, for which there is no evidence on the shroud, and particles of chalk, which there also don't appear to be.

Hugh:

I know the answer to my question, and I understand its significance. My intent is to point out yet another production issue with the medieval linen artifact, having to do with the purpose of sizing and the behavior of pigment vehicles on sized and un-sized surfaces.

The content of Mr. Savage's reply would have been less important to me than the fact of his actual reply.

BTW, rabbit skin glue is only one kind of sizing; it is used in specific applications for its specific properties. (My partner is an artist; we have spent a lot of time playing with traditional materials and media.)

 

[The Norseman]

Mr. Savage:

How do you think that the presence of what has not been demonstrated to be blood, but has been demonstrated to contain substances consistent with artists' pigment; applied to a piece of medieval linen; applied in a non-naturalistic and non-anatomical manner; applied in shapes and directions that do not conform to the behaviour of blood from a washed, hours-dead corpse; applied in shaped and directions that do not conform to the effects of gravity; applied in such a way as to obviate the possibility that the linen was ever wrapped around a body;and applied in conjunction with an anatomically inaccurate, posturally impossible, byzantine-styled representative image can be considered a step in the direction...

Don't forget to add that, if wrapped with the upper and lower parts matching, the shroud makes Yeshua about two inches thick.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Don't forget to add that, if wrapped with the upper and lower parts matching, the shroud makes Yeshua about two inches thick.

Sort of like this bloke:

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Bodily Contact

EXUDATES.

Barbet was one of the first to confront the idea that fresh liquid blood, which he guessed would spread out and soak in around its source by capillary action was not an appropriate medium for making the well defined edges of the trickles on the arms and across the back. Perhaps he tried dribbling blood on a sheet, perhaps he tried blotting it with cloth; I don't know, but whatever it was, he failed. He was also aware that blood dries surprisingly quickly, and that it doesn't flow well from dead bodies, which again could not account for the trickles...

Hugh,
- Thanks for all the info in your post. I'll need to process a little at a time.
- Re the selection above -- could moistening of the body cause the "trickles" to be transferred to the shroud upon contact with it?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Bodily Contact

EXUDATES.

Barbet was one of the first to confront the idea that fresh liquid blood, which he guessed would spread out and soak in around its source by capillary action was not an appropriate medium for making the well defined edges of the trickles on the arms and across the back. Perhaps he tried dribbling blood on a sheet, perhaps he tried blotting it with cloth; I don't know, but whatever it was, he failed. He was also aware that blood dries surprisingly quickly, and that it doesn't flow well from dead bodies, which again could not account for the trickles. However, he was unable to let go of the idea that the stains are really blood, so had to speculate, and the exudate was born. Trouble was, exudate, as well he knew, is yellow to colourless, and the marks he was trying to explain are red. The solution to that was that the red blood cells had largely hemolysed, and their content spread out into the plasma...

Hugh,
- But doesn't that make sense if the body had been tortured?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Bodily Contact

EXUDATES...He hoped that by a process similar to chromatography, the serum would spread out further than the red colour, and imagined he could identify serum borders to the wounds...

- But, don't you accept that there does appear to be at least some serum showing?

 

[The Norseman]

Sort of like this bloke:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/heGY9jr.gif[/qimg]

LOL

I've never seen of nor heard of that book. I'm now going to quasi-not-really-secretly start referring to the picture painted on this (one of many) Burial Shroud of Christ as 'Flat Stanley'.

 

[Jabba]

Blood/Bodily Contact

...The solution to that was that the red blood cells had largely hemolysed, and their content spread out into the plasma. He hoped that by a process similar to chromatography, the serum would spread out further than the red colour, and imagined he could identify serum borders to the wounds. As far as I know, nobody checked whether this was a credible hypothesis by lifting a dressing off a clotting wound to find out what had happened, and hypothesis became gospel first by authority and then by antiquity...

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

 

[carlitos]

<snip>

This was written as an epitaph to the 9/11 Truth movement, but it applies here. A few key excerpts, with my highlighting.

Recognizing and Classifying Irreducible Delusion

An Irreducible Delusion has two defining characteristics. First, as the name implies, it is irreducible, meaning that it is a belief that stands on its own and is not dependent on any other information; and it is a delusion, or in other words a belief that is demonstrably false or untenable. It is important, though often difficult, to isolate the Irreducible Belief from other, consequential beliefs. When it is found, it is usually surprisingly simple. It also may be recognized based on typical responses to criticism, which include the following:

• Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses;
• Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence;
• Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate; and
• Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.

The Irreducible Delusion is fundamentally an example of the rare existential fallacy, and the consequences thereof constitute (at best) a vacuous truth. In other words, were the Irreducible Delusion actually a true fact, the logical consequences would be plausible, but no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid. The Irreducible Delusion can also be classified according to the strength of its incorrectness. The author introduces the following three categories as a suggested notation:

Strong Delusion: Belief that is directly contradicted by unambiguous fact.

The Strong Delusion is, in short, a factual error. This is often supported by argument to authority and reliance on quote-mining, out-of-date, or retracted information in an attempt to justify the error. A common example is ”No Aircraft Hit the Pentagon,” which is a Strong Delusion because it is directly contradicted by extensive physical evidence.​

Weak Delusion: Belief that is categorically or indirectly contradicted, but requires reasoning in order to refute.

The Weak Delusion is an error of reasoning that may proceed from facts that are correct. It is usually justified through hasty generalization, affirming the consequent, or equivocation. An example is ”Bombs Exploded in the WTC Basements” – there is no hard data from the basements to flatly contradict this belief, rather one must reason based on secondary indicators that rule out any detonation in favor of deflagration. The error in this example is one of affirming the consequent, viz. failure to recognize that not all explosions are caused by bombs.​

Conditional Delusion: Belief that is totally unsupported, and thus impossible or unnecessary to directly refute.

This third class is related to sophistry, and typically manifests as an argument from ignorance. This class is common because the Truth Movement often focuses on the absence of evidence it arbitrarily decides is important, rather than addressing actual evidence. It is also generally followed by a misplaced burden of proof or call to perfection. ”Aircraft were never identified by their component serial numbers” is an example of Conditional Delusion – while vaguely possible, there is no way to prove, and indeed no reason to even suspect, that such checking was never performed. Furthermore, there are numerous other means of unambiguous identification, so without somehow invalidating this other evidence this oversight would have no practical impact even if it was true. As a result, for this claim to be relevant, it must be true, and it is conditional on several unsupported assumptions.​

The three classes above are intended to focus our analysis, thereby addressing the Irreducible Delusion as directly and succinctly as possible. The reader will note, ironically, that the stronger Delusions are actually easier to dispatch. This is due to better definition of the stronger cases, therefore allowing a concise rebuttal with fewer distractions and less development of the opposing argument. .....

Recommendations

Given the advanced age of the debate with the Truth Movement, and the lack of new arguments being put forth as explained in the Introduction, the influence of Irreducible Delusion can only be increasing in proportion. We have also explored how this factor disrupts debate, defies logic, and resists attempts to correct it through deflection and resurgence. None of this is conducive to education, meaningful debate, or even basic civility.

The author outlines the following recommended steps to address this issue:

1. If debate is proceeding badly, attempt to determine whether an Irreducible Delusion is the cause.

In preceding sections, the author presented recognition features of the Irreducible Delusion. Even though conspiracy theories, in particular, tend to inflate upon questioning, usually the Irreducible Delusion is omnipresent as a factor or motivation no matter how much the theory inflates, and thus it can be isolated deductively.

It is also important to keep in mind that all people, and not just the Truth Movement, may harbor Irreducible Delusions. One should attempt to verify one’s own position, both against known fact and other opinions, if a deadlock occurs.​

2. If Irreducible Delusion is indicated, attempt to define and classify the delusion in as simple terms as possible.

Without exception to date, examples of Irreducible Delusion can be expressed as simple, single-sentence, unambiguous statements of belief. While it may take considerable time to reach this state, once so formulated, the debate is over. If desired, one may simply confront the claimant with the belief thereafter, rather than address its many consequences.​

3. After isolating an Irreducible Delusion, re-evaluate your goals and act accordingly.

The Irreducible Delusion is, fundamentally, a rejection of logic. Upon isolating and confirming the belief, no further logical debate is likely to occur, and the likelihood of educating the incorrect party through yet more argumentation is nearly zero. Others are thereafter advised to discontinue, to remind the claimant of their underlying error, or to move to another topic.​

It is actually quite common for an individual to hold a mistaken belief that renders all conclusions on a topic indefensible, but to remain quite rational in unrelated fields. In this case, debaters will simply have to “agree to disagree” and avoid that topic, regardless of whom has made the logical mistake. This course is clearly more productive, and may also serve to dispel contentious feelings between the participants, ultimately facilitating an emotional, rather than a rational, re-evaluation of the Irreducible Delusion itself.
There are also those who engage in ridicule, a practice questioned by many on the JREF Forum. Various arguments have been advanced justifying this behavior, such as deterring others from adopting the incorrect viewpoint, or lightening the mood. It is also important to distinguish from reductio ad absurdum, an effective and logical technique, much as it is important to separate ad hominem and mere insult. While there are certainly individuals who will be swayed by ridicule, the author cannot determine whether it has proven effective or even counterproductive in this particular debate, and therefore cannot condone such behavior. Instead, the author merely advises others to be clear in their motivation – if humor and ridicule is the goal, so be it; but if one aims for education or preserving dignity of victims, ridicule is not called for.

...

Conclusion

In this whitepaper, the author defines and categorizes Irreducible Delusion, its effect on debate, and how it can be recognized through theory and examples. The concept is intended to guide participants into a more productive debate, and thereby facilitate retirement of unfounded yet persistent beliefs found here at the JREF Forum.

The concept of Irreducible Delusion is not unique to the Truth Movement by any means. Similar delusions are found in virtually every conspiracy theory or denialist position, including those who question the Moon Landing, the Holocaust, whether infectious diseases are human inventions, economic conspiracies, and so on. These delusions are also, on occasion, found even in science. History is replete with examples of individuals who refused to abandon unworkable theories or positions after being faced with superior evidence or reasoning, and even the most enlightened among us, such as Dr. Albert Einstein, occasionally struggled to overcome his own convictions.

Conviction, even blind conviction, can be a valuable human attribute in science and logic. It is this property which sometimes forces us to re-examine earlier results, to set high standards of rigor and proof, and to inspire equal determination in those who disagree. Science is ultimately a competitive process, and without competitive spirit, its strength is diminished. However, science also requires that conviction must be relinquished, and an equally strong conviction adopted, if the burdens of proof are met. It is this last requirement that so many find difficult to accept, and as a result, conviction can be a double-edged sword.

.....

What is relevant to this discussion, however, is that the hunt for anomalies is eerily similar to the mechanism of Irreducible Delusion. In the former, one attempts to find a lone fact or conflict that allegedly disproves the entire hypothesis. In the latter, one incorporates a single error that propagates through the entire belief structure. If one avoids following the Scientific Method, but instead becomes convinced by an “argument to anomaly,” one thereby willingly accepts an Irreducible Delusion.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

There is no controversy. The only people who think there is a controversy are either selling books or holding on to nonsense. There is no good evidence of blood, but there is plenty of evidence showing a 14th century scam. This topic is as controversial as "People and Pandas". Get real.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

The two sides that you mention are "delusion" and "reality".

And there is no controversy, your efforts notwithstanding.

 

[pakeha]

Sort of like this bloke:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/heGY9jr.gif[/qimg]

LOL

I've never seen of nor heard of that book. I'm now going to quasi-not-really-secretly start referring to the picture painted on this (one of many) Burial Shroud of Christ as 'Flat Stanley'.

Oh, dear.
Irresistible.

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

A world-wide controversy?
Could you explain what you mean by that phrase, please?

 

[SezMe]

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

It is worldwide - but only because your bleating goes around the world on the 'tubz. Other than that, it's worldwide only in the sense it seeps into every corner of your mom's basement.

 

[John Jones]

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

This is not worldwide controversy.

This is a point of religious faith among pathologically credulous people who can't keep-up with rational discussion, and who happen to live in different parts of the world.

Note the distinction.

 

[HighRiser]

- I had never heard that phrase before, but think it's quite descriptive, and that it well applies to both sides, and numerous sub-issues, in this worldwide controversy.

Worldwide controversy... To be fair, I suppose believers of the miraculous nature of the SoT are as widespread as Catholicism is. And I'm sure the "controversy" meme is well-spread throughout shroudie literature. Much as it is touted in the intelligent design camp. And for the same reason; It lends credibility to the cause to have the followers believe that the dissenters aren't able to present an argument strong enough to dispel the myth. It's not true, but the majority of the believers will never question it.