GT/CS,
Howdy! The post by Monza quoted below discusses some of the evidence against any patching theory.
This post by davefoc contains the image below showing the area sampled and who got which pieces, complete with radiograph version that shows uninterrupted banding in the sampled section.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5664fff134e0afb3.jpg[/qimg]
Welcome.
GT/CS,
- I'm the only Shroudie on this thread, so you should take what I say with a grain of salt...
My highlighting.GT/CS,
- I'm the only Shroudie on this thread, so you should take what I say with a grain of salt...
- You might have seen this already, but just in case, the following is (I think) the main study using "robust" statistics. http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/RAFC04May2010.pdf
- The following is an oversimplification of my take on the sample.
- The size of the sample taken was about 1 sq inch. The sample was divided in half -- one half being cut into thirds and divied up amongst the three labs. The other half was kept in reserve by church officials.
- The sample was taken from an oft handled corner of the shroud that is claimed by Shroudie scientists to show indications of repair and to be chemically non-representative of the greater shroud. So far, I think that is, in fact, the case.- For a 1600 repair to account for a 1300 year error in the carbon dating, requires a repair that takes up a LARGE portion of the sample (80%?) -- and, still be missed by all those experts. I still think that's a reasonable possibility... But also, if they could find enough repair to cause an error of, say, a few hundred years, the whole carbon dating effort should be called into question (in my opinion).
- The best picture we have so far of the area sampled can be seen on page 208 of this thread, in post#8298.
- Good luck.
--- Jabba
to S&G
Did you miss my references at post 8967? Anyway, another good diagram showing exactly where the radiocarbon sample came from is at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nDJ9cO-9Y...tt7ZHtYHes/s800/C-14sampleWilsonBlood189b.jpg
A
Sorry, I let this slip by earlier. But yes, the 'other fluids' subject is interesting. Wounds ooze all sort of stuff as they heal (or get infected), and one might expect something a little bit more varied from the eclectic collection on Jesus than the fairly homogenous stains we actually observe on the shroud; although there does seem to be some evidence (the UV) of colourless material, it could as easily have come from blood applied by a forger as from actual wounds. As for other fluids, would a real crucified body have (excuse me) urinated or defecated? There is a lively argument going on elsewhere at the moment about whether the body was washed or not prior to being placed in the shroud. Not a controversy if there wasn't a body at all of course, but quite interesting if there was!And they paid their contractors a gallon of beer per day (in addition to other wages). Wish my boss would do that.
hughfarey, the times I've been seriously injured there was more than just blood involved--puss and other bodily fluids also leeked out (I don't know what all the fluids were, but they've been there every time). I currently have some small scrapes on my hand, thanks to worne soles on my shoes and sandstone cliffs. They weren't deep enough to bleed, but the scrapes did exude some fluid.
How much of the yellow stuff on that dressing would have been from the blood, vs. from the other seepages? And as a question for the believers (not saying you are one, just that this brought the question to mind): Why were there no bodily fluids other than blood on the shroud?
GT/CS,
- I'm the only Shroudie on this thread, so you should take what I say with a grain of salt...
- You might have seen this already, but just in case, the following is (I think) the main study using "robust" statistics. http://www.lse.ac.uk/statistics/research/RAFC04May2010.pdf
- The following is an oversimplification of my take on the sample.
- The size of the sample taken was about 1 sq inch. The sample was divided in half -- one half being cut into thirds and divied up amongst the three labs. The other half was kept in reserve by church officials.
- The sample was taken from an oft handled corner of the shroud that is claimed by Shroudie scientists to show indications of repair and to be chemically non-representative of the greater shroud. So far, I think that is, in fact, the case.
- For a 1600 repair to account for a 1300 year error in the carbon dating, requires a repair that takes up a LARGE portion of the sample (80%?) -- and, still be missed by all those experts. I still think that's a reasonable possibility... But also, if they could find enough repair to cause an error of, say, a few hundred years, the whole carbon dating effort should be called into question (in my opinion).
- The best picture we have so far of the area sampled can be seen on page 208 of this thread, in post#8298.
- Good luck.
--- Jabba
The great "Was the Body Washed?" controversy? Put yourself, for a moment, in the mindset of one who is convinced that the marks on the shroud derive from a recently crucified body. If you are Fred Zugibe (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York for over 30 years, Director of This, Fellow of That and Professor of The Other), you think that the dead body was covered from head to foot in filth of one kind or another, which must have been washed off before the rather distinct markings on the shroud, emerging from newly exposed wounds, could be transferred to the cloth. If, on the other hand, you are Gilbert Lavoie (a "medical doctor"), you think that the shape of the blood flows on the wrist, arms, hair and side are a direct consequence of wounds sustained in an upright position while being crucified, and that they must have been there when the body was placed in the shroud. You also think that a Jewish religious insistence that as much of a person as possible (including loose blood) should all be buried together means that the body of Jesus would not have been washed. Both sides have adherents, and there are various intermediate positions to keep the waters muddied. Each side considers the views of the other absurd, of course.
