Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Rincewind]

I saw 10 posts from Jabba's in the last 3 or 4 days and that's more than the usual rate last weeks, so I may assume this change of rhythm is normal in him

I saw he's trying to deceive himself and others by repeating old debunked bits and improper appeals using some new wordings that are reaching new frontiers, like chained non-sequiturs.

yup!

 

[Belz...]

Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved?

To a great extent.

Next.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Do you really believe both that I am stupid and that I am screwing with you guys?

Read what I posted: I said that the statement that Jabba is "either stupid or just screwing with you guys" is a false dilemma. It is also, by the way, a strawman of zooterkin's position introduced by you. apparently so that you could complain that you had been insulted. Zooterkin did not say that you are stupid or that you are screwing with us.

But since you ask, let's look at the evidence.

I suspect that I'm not stupid...

Not good evidence that you are not stupid, because it has been established by Kruger and Dunning that you are inevitably incompetent to make this assessment yourself.

...and, I know that I'm not screwing with you guys.

Not good evidence that you are not screwing with us, because it is exactly what you would say if you were screwing with us.

So all we have to go by is your posting behaviour on the forum, which has been characterised by repeatedly posting arguments that have already been shot down, apparently as a result of a sustained failure to understand what others have posted. Whether this is because you are unable or unwilling to understand what has been posted is a matter of conjecture; however, it is certainly inconsistent with an intelligent person arguing in good faith.

Perhaps it is best to apply Hanlon's razor.

 

[Belz...]

Well are you?

You know he will only read/address the first question/comment, right?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved? The scientists didn't choose the sample -- the Church did.

We know that the purpose was achieved. The report shows that.

Are you suggesting that the church had any interest in having the shroud declared a fake?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Clearly, no one has to play by my rules.
- But if you want empirical evidence that my way doesn't work, someone needs to actually play by my rules for awhile.

Jabba, we don't want to or have to disprove your method. YOU have to prove it. A good way to start is by abiding with it yorself.

Hans

 

[aleCcowaN]

Are you suggesting that the church had any interest in having the shroud declared a fake?

Didn't you know that if you soak the shroud in hot water and make a tea you will become immortal by drinking it? The church surely wants all the juices for the pope and the cardinals.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm curious. How does performing the C14 test three times and getting the same or overlapping results affect the odds?

Does it mean that after the three separate tests, the remaining probability of a date somewhat outside the range is now 5% X 5% X 5% = .0125%?

No. The three tests in three labs (and the control samples of known age) are all extras, presumably a result of the emotional process that Jabba mentions. The church, perhaps ignorant of normal procedures, seems to have insisted on these superfluous procedures.

They don't really change the result, but of course, now they were done, it makes it impossible for people like Jabba (at least if they want to retain any shred of credibility) to accuse the lab of fraud: One might perhaos suspect one lab of fraud, but three??

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Didn't you know that if you soak the shroud in hot water and make a tea you will become immortal by drinking it? The church surely wants all the juices for the pope and the cardinals.

Yuck!

Hans

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yuck!

Speaking of yuck! and 14C, didn't naphthalene make the shroud look older than it is?

 

[John Jones]

Speaking of yuck! and 14C, didn't naphthalene make the shroud look older than it is?

No, because they cleaned the samples before they did the ¹⁴C dating.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No, because they cleaned the samples before they did the ¹⁴C dating.

So where does Jabba's contamination come from? Isn't it just the magical contamination of the magical patch in the magic carpet that will fly the believers to heaven?

Now we have nice ADN techniques to analyse the linen fabric and compare it with varieties grown in Europe during the Middle Ages and in the near East during Roman times. Anything on this? Anything about the Jabba's of the world asking this to set things straight?

 

[Giordano]

So where does Jabba's contamination come from? Isn't it just the magical contamination of the magical patch in the magic carpet that will fly the believers to heaven?

Now we have nice ADN techniques to analyse the linen fabric and compare it with varieties grown in Europe during the Middle Ages and in the near East during Roman times. Anything on this? Anything about the Jabba's of the world asking this to set things straight?

My understanding is that the latest DNA evidence indicates that the cloth was probably woven in India, but contains pollen, debris, etc, from all over the world (probably from visitors). This latest DNA evidence doesn't provide information as to the time of manufacture, unlike the 14 C studies. But the cloth was not woven in the Middle East, which (dare I say it?) removes some of the weight from the pro-authenticity pan of the balance. Although to be fair there is the small possibility that the linen could have been used to wrap Christ after it was woven in and imported from India.

Your statement is very much true: to negate the definitive 14 C dating studies one must propose that the dated fragment was a Middle-Age patch (even though this would have to be invisible even under a microscope, maintained the weave lines without interruption, and was not detected by any experts, including those assembled by the Church expressly to be certain that it was not a patch), and/or that after all decontamination employed by the scientists, this strip of cloth still had more than 50% contamination by weight of modern materials.

Or one can propose that the 14C dating was a huge conspiracy entered into by the Church and by all 3 scientific groups, the later of whom did the analysis independently and double-blind together with controls. Although the weave of the shroud linen was fairly unique, one of the labs reduced sample and controls in indistinguishable ash before passing it on to the people doing the dating to be extra certain of their double blinding protocol.
All explained multiple times to Jabba without any change in the discussion (expect fringe reset very shortly). But fyi.

 

[Lucian]

My understanding is that the latest DNA evidence indicates that the cloth was probably woven in India, but contains pollen, debris, etc, from all over the world (probably from visitors). This latest DNA evidence doesn't provide information as to the time of manufacture, unlike the 14 C studies. But the cloth was not woven in the Middle East, which (dare I say it?) removes some of the weight from the pro-authenticity pan of the balance. Although to be fair there is the small possibility that the linen could have been used to wrap Christ after it was woven in and imported from India.

Your statement is very much true: to negate the definitive 14 C dating studies one must propose that the dated fragment was a Middle-Age patch (even though this would have to be invisible even under a microscope, maintained the weave lines without interruption, and was not detected by any experts, including those assembled by the Church expressly to be certain that it was not a patch), and/or that after all decontamination employed by the scientists, this strip of cloth still had more than 50% contamination by weight of modern materials.

Or one can propose that the 14C dating was a huge conspiracy entered into by the Church and by all 3 scientific groups, the later of whom did the analysis independently and double-blind together with controls. Although the weave of the shroud linen was fairly unique, one of the labs reduced sample and controls in indistinguishable ash before passing it on to the people doing the dating to be extra certain of their double blinding protocol.
All explained multiple times to Jabba without any change in the discussion (expect fringe reset very shortly). But fyi.

The argument that the cloth was manufactured in India isn't particularly compelling:

Even in the latter case [proposed scenario that the shroud was in Jerusalem c. 33 CE then moved to Şanliurfa in Turkey, then Constantinople, then Lirey, then Chambery, and finally Turin]...the detection of mtDNA haplogroups that are typically from India is somehow unexpected. One obvious possibility is that during the course of centuries, individuals of Indian ancestry came into contact with TS. Taking into account the rate of DNA degradation and PCR-biases toward undamaged DNA, the recent contamination scenario is extremely likely. However, one alternative and intriguing possibility is that the linen cloth was weaved in India, as supported perhaps by the original name of TS - Sindon - which appears to derive from Sindia or Sindien, a fabric coming from India.

Link

As I said upthread, I'm not qualified in any way to judge the science presented in the article, but the article itself is a nightmare of false balance.

 

[SezMe]

They don't really change the result, but of course, now they were done, it makes it impossible for people like Jabba (at least if they want to retain any shred of credibility) to accuse the lab of fraud: One might perhaos suspect one lab of fraud, but three?

Retain?

 

[aleCcowaN]

My understanding is that the latest DNA evidence indicates that the cloth was probably woven in India, but contains pollen, debris, etc, from all over the world (probably from visitors). This latest DNA evidence doesn't provide information as to the time of manufacture, unlike the 14 C studies. But the cloth was not woven in the Middle East, which (dare I say it?) removes some of the weight from the pro-authenticity pan of the balance. Although to be fair there is the small possibility that the linen could have been used to wrap Christ after it was woven in and imported from India.

<snipped for formatting>

Excellent! Thank you for the whole succinct yet complete and balanced explanation. I'm sure other people will be thankful because the very existence of a long thread like this supposes the existence of matters to discuss and not the continuous rehashing of someone who can't accept the truth (Jabba, for the sake of newcomers).

As I said upthread, I'm not qualified in any way to judge the science presented in the article, but the article itself is a nightmare of false balance.

Interesting. I'm sure Jabba will find a connection between that piece of fabric, Thomas Didymus and how greased were the commercial gears during those times.

The cloth for the shroud doesn't look like the kind of imported goods a group of transient bums could acquire in Jerusalem AD 29 but the kind rich peregrinating people could buy in the same place some 1250 years later.

Maybe the whole "the best things for our Lord" attitude gives it away. Even the scriptwriters in one of Indiana Jones' had no problem to come up with the line "it's the cup of a simple carpenter".

 

[abaddon]

You know he will only read/address the first question/comment, right?

So he claims, but what would the evidence suggest?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

So he claims, but what would the evidence suggest?

I have evidence. I'll have to look for many needles in many haystacks. I'll be back.

 

[Giordano]

The argument that the cloth was manufactured in India isn't particularly compelling:

As I said upthread, I'm not qualified in any way to judge the science presented in the article, but the article itself is a nightmare of false balance.

I was curious in reading all this if some DNA from the flax itself might remain in the linen cloth. Then perhaps flax plants used in India might have detectably different genetic polymorphisms than flax plants used later or in other areas. This, if possible, would better resolve the question of where it was made, but in fact- who cares? Even if made in India or from Indian flax plants, that would not say much about its later use. Probably the fact that the weave was virtually unknown in early AD is itself very, very strong evidence that the Shroud was not available at the time of Jesus. And of course the 14C dating is more definitive still.

I hope I will not be back.

 

[John Jones]

So where does Jabba's contamination come from? Isn't it just the magical contamination of the magical patch in the magic carpet that will fly the believers to heaven?

Now we have nice ADN techniques to analyse the linen fabric and compare it with varieties grown in Europe during the Middle Ages and in the near East during Roman times. Anything on this? Anything about the Jabba's of the world asking this to set things straight?

All of Jabba's complaints about the ¹⁴C dating have been dismantled without exception.

There is a fantastically complex new method that could theoretically determine where the flax in the CIQ was grown. It's called Site-specific Natural Isotope Fractionation - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. or SNIF-NMR^* It looks at the occurrence of ¹³C, ¹⁷O, and ²H (deuterium) on specific sites in a given molecule. It's currently used to authenticate wine and juices.

One problem is a dearth of flax samples known to have been grown in given locations over the last 20 centuries.

^* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_analysis_by_nuclear_magnetic_resonance