Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[FergusM1970]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

What I was saying, Fergus, was that twelve samples from the moon were made of one kind of rock, but that the rest of it might be made of a different kind.

If you share Jabba's delusional belief in an invisible patch why don't you just get off the fence and say so?

[David Mo]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Perhaps skullduggery was a bit harsh; "culpable incompetence" might sum it up better, which certainly leaves the field open to anybody else wishing to turn it into deliberate obfuscation, and possibly dishonesty. Gove, I admit, does not accuse anybody of deliberate fraud, and certainly, if sadly, accepts the 13th century dating.

“A bit harsh”? Can you say where Gove mentions “culpable incompetence” about the process of “sample taking”? I know Gove’s hard expressions about STURP, Luigi Gonella, Walter McCrone and many others. I don’t know any global disqualification of the process of sample taking. At the beginning he thought the things could have been done better, but essentially he claimed the results of radiocarbon dating were perfectly reliable and a big success for the AMS method (invented by him). Lately he considered the possibility of a contaminant bioplastic layer. He never confirmed this hypothesis. But if he had done so, he would not have accused anyone of incompetence, since it would be a hitherto unknown contaminant. But the fact is that the famous bioplastic layer was never confirmed neither by Gove nor anyone.

I think the disqualifications you write are your personal ideas not taken from Gove. But I don’t understand what “culpable incompetence” you see in the process of “sample taking”. Two textile experts had widely examined with microscope equipment a piece of cloth and they have certified that the sample was homogenous and no patch or alteration was visible. Some minor contaminants were detected but they are not relevant for the radiocarbon dating. Where is the “culpable incompetence”? Phantasmatic sindonist theories about non existent entities as “invisible mendings” and so on? Statistical theories with no empirical base? I don’t know any textile or radiocarbon expert that had published this global disqualification you uses or similar. Do you know?

Quote:

The "we" of my post was written by Riani in consultation with Atkinson. I believe the statistical analysis was carried out without any reference to Fanti (who certainly did know about the patch hypothesis), whose contribution to the paper was historical, minor, and most importantly subsequent to the discovery of the age/distance relationship. The authors must indeed have had a good idea of the possible reasons for their findings when they published their paper, as they quote "medieval mending" in their introduction, but I believe them when they say the original analysis was carried out in ignorance of it.

I don’t know what bases support your belief that Fanti didn’t say anything to his colleagues about an invisible mending. Fanti is a signer of the article. Fanti was a well known sindonist and had openly supported the invisible mending theory. What do you think that Riani and Atkinson were thinking they were doing?

When someone is working in a team first of all he want to know who are his partners and what is the subject he is investigating. Otherwise he may be in trouble. If I'm working in epistemological philosophy and suddenly I see my work associated to OVNIs I would be furious. You imagine a fanciful team.

[hughfarey]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

I think the major issue, here, is that you're saying, "They might've picked material from a super special spot that is in no way different from the rest of it except somehow for age." and then providing neither proof no reason to suspect such a thing. Also known as "Pulling an excuse out of places that require inordinate amounts of sanitizing agents".

Yes, they might. Proof is not required for "might." Reason is given by the position of the sample on the cloth, and the age/distance gradient found by Riani et al.

Originally Posted by Acleron

What gradient?

You have a paper with obvious flaws, that doesn't make an established gradient. They didn't even know the coordinates of all of the individual points, that's why they played fast and loose with various combinations. The fact that it failed peer review should make you stop and think, not accept it as fact.

I have an entirely reasonable paper written by a world renowned statistician and published in an entirely appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Your religious fanaticism is clouding your judgement.

Quote:

That lots of other fakes were around at the time only indicates that fakery was common. The motives of the church in accepting or rejecting fakes was and is still murky to say the least. The only interesting point is the Bishop's letter. And its interest is purely in being the first evidence of the existence of this particular cloth. That makes it a colossal coincidence that the totally independent carbon dating also shows it was made at the same time. The chances of this cloth coming from the first century are remote.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by pakeha

" ...the age/distance gradient across the carbon dating sample indicates that the area was not representative of the principle original material of the shroud." Are you saying there's the possibility of an invisible patch, then?

No, I don't believe in an invisible patch. A few interwoven threads of considerably more modern date, possibly, but there are plenty of other possible contaminants, such as "improvements" to the image (extra madder to brighten up the blood, for example) that might do the job.

Originally Posted by tsig

Trying to compare the shroud to unknown shrouds is an exercise in futility.

Is it? That would be a pity. I was hoping that somebody among the more erudite contributors to the forum might have some knowledge of the other relics around, and any controversy surrounding them. I think that regardless of when it was made, we should explore the medieval context of the shroud more fully.

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Dear me! Why not 3rd century, 7th century, 9th century, or 11th century then? If the purported patch pieces that make up the shroud samples were accurately dated, then the only reason to posit first century for the "all but patchy stuff" shroud material is a desire to fit it to your religious bias. Frankly a miracle is a lot more likely.

I quite agree. I'm not wedded to the 1st century.

I've been wondering about the reason a forger would paint a double image on a long thin piece of cloth, and have come up with a hypothesis. It may have been made specifically to fit a 4 metre space (a little as, for example, the Bayeux tapestry may have been made to hang around a particular hall). One of the 'reasons for authenticity' is that an medieval artist, in the context of his time, wouldn't have bothered to paint a front and back on a long thin cloth. However, if the 4m length was a given, he would either be left with a couple of blank metres either side of his image, or, by painting two, have filled the space rather well.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

No, I don't believe in an invisible patch. A few interwoven threads of considerably more modern date, possibly, but there are plenty of other possible contaminants, such as "improvements" to the image (extra madder to brighten up the blood, for example) that might do the job.

And how do you propose that such contaminants would have survived the thorough cleaning the shroud samples were subjected to before being carbon dated?

[hughfarey]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

And how do you propose that such contaminants would have survived the thorough cleaning the shroud samples were subjected to before being carbon dated?

Good point. I've no idea. Oozing down between the fibres of the threads? Oozing into the medullas of the fibres? Maybe a more committed contaminant theorist than I has a better explanation.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Good point. I've no idea. Oozing down between the fibres of the threads? Oozing into the medullas of the fibres?

Does it really seem remotely credible to you that the standard cleaning techniques are so useless that they would have left the samples containing more contaminent than cloth? You do understand that in order to throw the dating off by enough to make the shroud really 1st century the samples would have had to be more than half contaminent? You also understand that if they really were that useless then no cloth sample could ever be reliably carbon dated, yet we have many examples of dates produced by carbon dating that agree with those obtained by other information?

Quote:

Maybe a more committed contaminant theorist than I has a better explanation.

No-one has yet come up with one.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Is it? That would be a pity.

No, comparing something that exists to something that doesn't is sad.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

No, I don't believe in an invisible patch. A few interwoven threads of considerably more modern date, possibly,

Your dictionary clearly has a different definition for "possibly" from mine. I'd like to see your working of how many such threads would be needed to explain your apparent gradient, and then some evidence that it would even be possible to insert new threads into a piece of woven material, let alone in an undetectable fashion.

Quote:

I quite agree. I'm not wedded to the 1st century.

Of course you aren't. Why do you seem to have a problem with the 14th?

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

...

I have an entirely reasonable paper written by a world renowned statistician and published in an entirely appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Your religious fanaticism is clouding your judgement.

...

That's some projection you have there.

You might look at some earlier posts of mine that show that I came to this thread because I'd seen arguments against the accepted evidence and wished to learn more. I've seen each argument against the cloth being a medieval forgery ably dismantled by the posters and any initial doubts I may have had against the dating has been dispelled. Also, I couldn't care less what the actual date is, the chances of a first century cloth coming from one particular guy out of all who died in that period is extremely small. But in the light of the available evidence, to consider there is a reasonable possibility that it came from the first century is bizarre.

The paper you are pinning your hopes on is flawed and those flaws have not been answered by the peculiar communication. What they did was a dressed up version of cherry picking, but they didn't even do it with established data.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

...This is all bit dull now, so instead of trying to get me to join one side or the other why not consider my earlier point, which was how a pope decided whether a relic was real or a fake in the 14th century...

Hugh,
- The remainder of my colleagues on this thread will not believe what I am about to say, but maybe you will... I can hope that maybe someday down the road, you will join my side (i.e. believe that the shroud is probably authentic) -- but mostly, I just want to know your opinion about these things. Don't you "worry" about the effect that Gove had on the impartiality of the process -- and also, the effect he had on the ultimate conclusion of the process?
--- Jabba

[wollery]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

No, I don't believe in an invisible patch. A few interwoven threads of considerably more modern date, possibly, but there are plenty of other possible contaminants, such as "improvements" to the image (extra madder to brighten up the blood, for example) that might do the job.

How many threads of a given age would be required to give a 14th century date on a 1st century cloth?
I'll give you a hint, even if they were added in the 20th century they'd have to amount to more than half the fibres in that area. Do you honestly think that that sort of substantial repair work would go unnoticed by textile experts and in photos under different lighting conditions that show consistency of markings across the sample area?

The samples were taken from an area of the shroud that had no image or "blood", so the "improvements" idea is a non-starter.

Any other ideas?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Originally Posted by Pixel42

And how do you propose that such contaminants would have survived the thorough cleaning the shroud samples were subjected to before being carbon dated?

Good point. I've no idea. Oozing down between the fibres of the threads? Oozing into the medullas of the fibres? Maybe a more committed contaminant theorist than I has a better explanation.

This particular post seems fairly indicative of your entire approach to this topic, hughfarey.

You appear to believe and not believe that something may or may not have happened at some time or another to something that may or may not be the genuine shroud of someone who may or may not be the biblical Jesus.

Why do you feel the need to share this more-or-less total lack of an opinion with us?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Does it really seem remotely credible to you that the standard cleaning techniques are so useless that they would have left the samples containing more contaminent than cloth?

Not only that, but we know that the standard techniques DID work. That's what the control samples were there for, after all--to confirm that the methods were working. Partially it's to test the reactor, partially it's to test the lab.

In order for hughfarey's scenario to work, he has to explain why the only material these techniques don't work for is the shroud's cloth. This isn't impossible--there are some materials that certain techniques don't work for (I spent many an hour trying to determine if matrix affects would render my atomic absorption spectroscopy results useless, for example)--but it needs to be done. The techniques--both prep and running the samples--did work for other materials. Why not this one?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Originally Posted by Acleron

The chances of this cloth coming from the first century are remote.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Dear me! Why not 3rd century, 7th century, 9th century, or 11th century then? If the purported patch pieces that make up the shroud samples were accurately dated, then the only reason to posit first century for the "all but patchy stuff" shroud material is a desire to fit it to your religious bias. Frankly a miracle is a lot more likely.

I quite agree. I'm not wedded to the 1st century.

Then you don't really have much to add here, since the miraculous, first century origin of the shroud (or evidence against it) is the entire topic of the thread.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Hugh,
- The remainder of my colleagues on this thread . . .

<snip>

The remainder of what???

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Why do you feel the need to share this more-or-less total lack of an opinion with us?

He's probably not sure.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

This particular post seems fairly indicative of your entire approach to this topic, hughfarey.

You appear to believe and not believe that something may or may not have happened at some time or another to something that may or may not be the genuine shroud of someone who may or may not be the biblical Jesus.

Why do you feel the need to share this more-or-less total lack of an opinion with us?

Well, that's because he is a no-claimer. He thinks the rhetorical device of making no claim renders him invincible. If the going gets to tough, he simply states that he has made no claim, absolving him of all responsibility for the claims he has in fact made.

I know you know this, but it bears pointing out for any gullible lurkers out there who fail to see through the subterfuge.

Originally Posted by Resume

He's probably not sure.

And will deny it anyway.

[kblood]

Did they date the shroud yet? How? Why and why not?

How much of the shroud is intact today? Just the head of it, or the whole shroud? Or is it still completely intact?

I would like to know, because I saw a documentary about it where they tried to forged another one to test a few theories.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by kblood

Did they date the shroud yet? How? Why and why not?

Yup it was dated by carbon 14 methods, turns out it is a 14th century fake. Try to pay attention.

Originally Posted by kblood

How much of the shroud is intact today? Just the head of it, or the whole shroud? Or is it still completely intact?

Pretty much most of it, barring some scorching from a fire in the church. Why do you even ask that?

Originally Posted by kblood

I would like to know, because I saw a documentary about it where they tried to forged another one to test a few theories.

Without any reference, it is hard to frame a reply, but the shroud has been replicated quite a few times by modern artists.

[kblood]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Yup it was dated by carbon 14 methods, turns out it is a 14th century fake. Try to pay attention.

Pretty much most of it, barring some scorching from a fire in the church. Why do you even ask that?

Without any reference, it is hard to frame a reply, but the shroud has been replicated quite a few times by modern artists.

Its only because I believe in Timetravel and immortality. I need to have the facts summed up now and then. Thanks.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Hugh,
- The remainder of my colleagues on this thread will not believe what I am about to say, but maybe you will... I can hope that maybe someday down the road, you will join my side (i.e. believe that the shroud is probably authentic)

Because you sure as hell will never join the other side.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Well, that's because he is a no-claimer. He thinks the rhetorical device of making no claim renders him invincible. If the going gets to tough, he simply states that he has made no claim, absolving him of all responsibility for the claims he has in fact made.

I know you know this, but it bears pointing out for any gullible lurkers out there who fail to see through the subterfuge.

It's my least favorite tactic. It's inherently dishonest, relying upon the audience to not notice that the questions all presuppose certain stands on the issue and ignores the self-evident fact that not all questions are reasonable.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Then you don't really have much to add here, since the miraculous, first century origin of the shroud (or evidence against it) is the entire topic of the thread.

hughfarey, please re-read this until you understand it. In order for the shroud to be the burial cloth of Jesus, it must originate from the right place, at the right time. It must be many other things as well (such as an actual burial shroud), but if it's from the wrong place or time, it CANNOT be the burial shroud of Jesus. Jabba and his ilk argue that it is. Thus, ANY accurate C14 date other than "1st Century" proves that the shroud isn't what they say it is. The debate is, at that point, over for all honest participants.

The shroudies have a very, very small target to hit. If they miss it, in any direction (temporally or geographically), they are wrong, pure and simple. That's the heart of this debate. If you can't contribute to it, your posts are at best addressing side issues irrelevant to this discussion.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Does it really seem remotely credible to you that the standard cleaning techniques are so useless that they would have left the samples containing more contaminent than cloth? You do understand that in order to throw the dating off by enough to make the shroud really 1st century the samples would have had to be more than half contaminent? You also understand that if they really were that useless then no cloth sample could ever be reliably carbon dated, yet we have many examples of dates produced by carbon dating that agree with those obtained by other information?

Not to forget that (as we've discussed several times before ) the labs used different techniques, indeed several sets of different techniques, on the samples, yet each produced similar results.
Further the possibility of such contamination was discussed even before the radiocarbon samples were taken, as were methods to eliminate it.

The evidence indicates that the "magic contamination" is purely a figment of the wish fulfillment fantasies of the shroudies.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

Yes, they might. Proof is not required for "might." Reason is given by the position of the sample on the cloth, and the age/distance gradient found by Riani et al.

Sure. But nobody who uses that excuse here is presenting that as a "maybe". They're using it as a "because" and then are unable to provide evidence to support it. They're not even trying.

There are zero credible reasons to suspect there's a magic invisible age-altering patch. All the arguments I've seen to the contrary are theologically based and not reality based.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Sure. But nobody who uses that excuse here is presenting that as a "maybe". They're using it as a "because" and then are unable to provide evidence to support it. They're not even trying.

There are zero credible reasons to suspect there's a magic invisible age-altering patch. All the arguments I've seen to the contrary are theologically based and not reality based.

Not even based on good theology. As I've pointed out before, the Bible specifically states that there was a separate wrapping for the head, something that shroudies studiously ignore.

[Mister Earl]

Dinwar, I don't even think it's a right / wrong, real / fake issue with the shroudie folks. I get the impression they think this is somehow an attack on their religion, and they're playing the loyal defenders. I'm amazed they seem to think that science even gives a quarter-damn about such things. It is... absurd.

[Dinwar]

My point was that they're wrong scientifically, and are heretics. The only way to conclude that the shroud of Turin is real is to conclude that the Bible lies. Not that it's metaphorical, not that it's meant to be read in the spirit of faith; there is no wiggle room. The Bible clearly states as a matter of (speaking from the believer's perspective) historical fact that there was a separate head-cloth, lying separate from the rest of the shroud when the women found the empty tomb. The shroud of Turin precludes such a cloth.

The god the shroudies believe in is the shroud itself, which is idolatry. They argue that the Bible lies (it's a natural consequence of the arguments they make), which heresy and nearly apostasy. Their religion is "The shroud is the true burial cloth of Christ", rather than the religion they pretend to follow. To doubt the validity of the shroud is to attack their religion, because the shroud IS their religion. Christianity/Catholicism is merely a cover-story.

When both science and theology agree that you're wrong, you've screwed up pretty badly.

[hughfarey]

Duplicate, sorry!

[hughfarey]

Originally Posted by wollery

How many threads of a given age would be required to give a 14th century date on a 1st century cloth?
I'll give you a hint, even if they were added in the 20th century they'd have to amount to more than half the fibres in that area. Do you honestly think that that sort of substantial repair work would go unnoticed by textile experts and in photos under different lighting conditions that show consistency of markings across the sample area?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Not only that, but we know that the standard techniques DID work. That's what the control samples were there for, after all--to confirm that the methods were working. Partially it's to test the reactor, partially it's to test the lab.

In order for hughfarey's scenario to work, he has to explain why the only material these techniques don't work for is the shroud's cloth. This isn't impossible--there are some materials that certain techniques don't work for (I spent many an hour trying to determine if matrix affects would render my atomic absorption spectroscopy results useless, for example)--but it needs to be done. The techniques--both prep and running the samples--did work for other materials. Why not this one?

Well, d'you know what? I think you're right. I had no idea what amount of contamination could make a 1st century date into a 14th century one, and being a good scientist I certainly wasn't going to be persuaded by unsubstantiated information provided on a blog. So for a couple of days I've been working on it myself and can only agree with you. If the introduction of more modern material wasn't so substantial that it must have been noticed, then it looks as if the carbon dates are indeed indicative of the rest of the shroud, and I have never had any reason to suppose them wrong. I don't believe that micro-organisms, paint media or any other contamination could have been added in sufficient proportion to skew the date sufficiently without being either noticed or cleaned off. Until now, while I have had respect for opinions in favour of all dates, I have not thought any of them convincing, but I have to admit this one's bit of a clincher.
In this context I went back to Benford and Marino's paper on shroud.com, and re-looked at their diagram of their suggested area of patch. I never thought much of it, but hadn't paid it much attention. It occupies the upper section of the radiocarbon sample, in a guillotine-blade shaped trapezium such that the Arizona sample was heavily contaminated and the Oxford sample marginally less so. However, unless all the 12 subsamples were cut in a line along the main sample, like a row of fish-fingers, they would not show the slowly changing age gradient that they do. If any of the samples was cut laterally, then what should have happened would be that the upper slices would show clear 16th century dates and the lower slices would show clear 1st century dates, while only slices including both 'patch' and 'original' would have shown intermediate dates. This is not what was reported in Nature. As it is, it appears that the age/distance gradient demonstrated by Riani, which I still have no reason to doubt, and may show contamination of some kind, clearly does not support a 1st century date for the shroud.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Why do you feel the need to share this more-or-less total lack of an opinion with us?

The need? No need at all, I assure you. I only do it to reply to the crowds of commenters who seem to care nothing for the shroud at all, but only my (and Jabba's) attitude to it!

[carlitos]

Fish do not have fingers.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Fish do not have fingers.

Nor do they need bicycles.

[hughfarey]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Fish do not have fingers.

Ah! Cultural differences. In the UK a fish-finger is a rectangle of fish covered in breadcrumbs and deep fried. Much beloved of children.

[carlitos]

Fish sticks in the US. A feature item in TV dinners and hot school lunches.