Carry on wasting your time.
The shroud has a ~14th century date. Any blood on it, if any, must be newer than that. Proving there is blood on the cloth gets you exactly nowhere, even if it were in your power to do so.
Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image
- Thread starter MRC_Hans
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Carry on wasting your time.
The shroud has a ~14th century date. Any blood on it, if any, must be newer than that. Proving there is blood on the cloth gets you exactly nowhere, even if it were in your power to do so.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Jabba, perhaps you should just infer from this that you cannot conclude anything from the data available:
It is not even possible to conclude that the stains contain blood, and hence absolutely impossible to conclude anything about the condition of the putative blood.
Till such time as new data might be available, the blood is a cold case. And since it is of very limited value for your argumentation, the smart thing to do would probably be to leave it as it is: Inconclusive. - In this way, at least you avoid admitting defeat on this particular subject.
Hans
It is not even possible to conclude that the stains contain blood, and hence absolutely impossible to conclude anything about the condition of the putative blood.
Till such time as new data might be available, the blood is a cold case. And since it is of very limited value for your argumentation, the smart thing to do would probably be to leave it as it is: Inconclusive. - In this way, at least you avoid admitting defeat on this particular subject.
Hans
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
None of which matters because the cloth can be no older than 1290.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
No, once again you setting up a false dichotomy. If the 700 year old claim loses weight, why do you assume it tilts toward a 2000 year date? Why doesn't it go toward a 1200 year old date, or a 300 year old date?
No, that is not the question that was asked. You are forgetting the first step in Effective Debate, which is to focus on one sub-issue at a time. You are changing the topic so you can make another argument, and you are failing to successfully make that argument.
The question is how does the presence of blood affect the date of the shroud?
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
That's well spotted, Jabba, and sent me back for a closer reading of Koseoglu's paper, 'Effects of Hemolysis Interference on Routine Biochemistry Parameters.' There are several differences in intent, in preparation and in procedure between his and Adler's 'Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud' which can account for the differences between the two observations without either being dismissed as altogether wrong.
For a start, it is not clear to me that Adler actually experimented with haemolysed blood. He describes that blood of a severely traumatised person "would produce a tremendous hemolysis" and goes on from there. Koseoglu used real blood.
However, in contrast, Koseoglu's experiments were carried out entirely in vitro, with no external agency to modify the blood at all, while Adler described the in vivo processes, in which, as I understand it, the liver and clotting play an important part. First the liver builds up "a very high bilirubin content." Then, either post-mortem or at wound sites, "that blood then clots, the exudate forms, and all the intact cells with hemoglobin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the bilirubin. So what one ends up with on the cloth is an exudate which has an enhanced bilirubin index with respect to the hemolyzed hemoglobin." None of this clotting and exuding is germane to Koseoglu.
Then, we must remember that the principal purpose of Koseoglu's work was to find out whether haemolysis affected the measurement of various quantities in the blood, not whether it affects the actual quantities. In his discussion of bilirubin, he says "Free hemoglobin with its pseudo-peroxidase activity interferes in the bilirubin procedure by inhibiting the diazonium color formation." I take this to mean that the actual amount of bilirubin cannot be accurately assessed in the presence of free haemoglobin, not that it is necessarily reduced. Koseoglu gives a reference: 'Haemolysis as an Interference Factor in Clinical Chemistry' by O. Sonntag, who explains that "in the presence of haemoglobin, erroneously high values were found for [various things including potassium and] erroneously low values were found for bilirubin [and various other things]." Erroneously, notice.
However (again) I have to say that I do think Adler was guilty of a certain amount of imprecise reporting. This sentence: "You now mix bilirubin which is yellow-orange with methemoglobin in its para-hemic form which is an orangey brown and you get blood which has a red color" makes no sense to me, and this: "In fact, we have been able to simulate this spectrum in the laboratory by the process described above" is inadequately explained. The relevant spectra are not shown, which they should be, for a start. Nor am I convinced by his idea that the potassium would somehow be held back in the cell membranes of the haemolysed cells, while the rest of the contents spilled into the plasma.
Conclusion: I think that Adler was grasping at straws in accounting for the lack of potassium, but was probably correct in supposing that the blood of a tortured man could contain high levels of bilirubin. Koseoglu is correct that whatever the actual levels of potassium and bilirubin, the presence of free haemoglobin produces exaggerated measurements of the first and diminished measurements of the second.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
My Dear Mr. Savage:
I will offer you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this uncivil bit of nym-bashing was merely a typo (you and I have dealt with this issue before).
Perhaps you ought to do more than a "superficial" reading of the article before you begin hoping to enlist others to disagree with it for you.
Was it not, in fact, you who offered an article that claimed the the "presence of billirubin" and the "absence of potassium" indicated that there was, in fact, blood (and blood from a "tortured creature") on the CIQ? This study seems to indicate that, were there actual blood on the CIQ (and had it actually been hemolysed), it would be high in potassium and low in billirubin. In other words, the absence of potassium does not indicate the presence of "tortured blood", but the absence of blood.
And, of course, as has been pointed out to you, even if there were, in fact, blood on the CIQ, it would tell us nothing about the age of the CIQ.
Might you consider actually presenting evidence that would indicate that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?
I remain, as ever,
Faithfully yours &ct.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Where is the evidence that the cloth is two thousand years old?
Not that there is real blood on it.
Not that the depiction on it would be difficult to fake in medieval times.
Not even that carbon dating is flawed.
Where is the actual, positive, affirmative evidence that the cloth is two thousand years old?
Not that there is real blood on it.
Not that the depiction on it would be difficult to fake in medieval times.
Not even that carbon dating is flawed.
Where is the actual, positive, affirmative evidence that the cloth is two thousand years old?
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Fringe Reset:
*I* created the shroud. I sent it back in time, but I missed the year 0 date, and it ended up about 1300 years ago. The blood is because the idiot who found it tripped, hit his head, and bled on the cloth.
Oh well.
*I* created the shroud. I sent it back in time, but I missed the year 0 date, and it ended up about 1300 years ago. The blood is because the idiot who found it tripped, hit his head, and bled on the cloth.
Oh well.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Sadly the blood question (once more around that hamster wheel) is the fringe reset. Having failed to demonstrate how undermining the radiocarbon dating evidence would in any way produce a preponderance of evidence in his favor, Jabba is simply changing horses to a topic that we all know has been done to death already, but in which he apparently hopes he can rejuvenate the circus that is this "debate."
I've always likened this sort of galloping to defibrillating a corpse. Every time you apply the paddles you get a sort of flopping about that briefly hints at the possibility of life, but which is just a reflexive response to an ineffectual stimulus.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
By giving the dead horse many jolts over the course of several months, all the twitches add up to about an hour's worth of motion. A horse that is in motion for an hour is statistically likely to be alive. So each round of flopping that I induce tips the scales in favor of a living horse.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Blood/What difference does it make?
- Would you accept that it tilts more in the direction of authenticity than it did before?
No. Why would it?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Blood/What difference does it make?
- Also, if it can be shown that the stains are not blood, I'll give up the ghost.
- It tilts the scale more towards authenticity than the scale was tilted before.
- Also, if it can be shown that the stains are not blood, I'll give up the ghost.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Not in the least. And the motte-and-bailey stunt is getting old, so knock it off.
Authenticity means a 2,000 year age. No other date. If you want to prove the cloth is authentic you have to show it's 2,000 years old. Showing that it's not 700 years old doesn't show it is some other specific age. And showing that it's specifically 2,000 years old is what you have to do to tilt the scale toward authenticity.
I would ask why we have to keep explaining this very simple point to you over and over again, but I'm pretty sure I know the reason.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
- no it doesn't. There's nothing in the authenticity pan.
- Slowvehicle did just that back at the start of baseball season. Last week he posted a link to it. Surely you haven't forgotten that?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Asked and answered. It does no such thing, in any way, shape, or form, for the reasons amply expressed, which you refuse to address.
Asked and answered. You're the one claiming it's blood, so it's your burden to prove it is.
This is part and parcel your position as of this time last week. Please explain why you have seen fit to reset the argument to a week ago and ignore everything that's been said to you in the meantime. Effective Debate cannot possibly mean repeating the same debunked claims and hoping they get better traction the second (or fifth) time around.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
My Dear Mr. Savage:
This latest reset reminds me very much of mine stepfodder's recipe for Scandahoovian* Bear: "First, cotch dem bear. Den, cooks it like moose, once."
You keep wanting to hope that claiming that there is blood on the CIQ means you can dismiss anything and everything of Dr. McCrone's work.
Therefore, I suggest "...dat first, you cotch dem bear..."
With anticipation, I remain,
Hopefully yours &ct.
*FTR: mine stepfodder was Norvegian.. He grew oop in Fargo, Nordekkoder, as he said it, "Opp wid dem svedes und norvegeians and dem odder fur-bearin' cridders what grows where it's dark und it's cold..."
Last edited:
- Status