Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- That is also what you keep telling me, but I think you're wrong. Should I start trying to show why I think you're wrong?
--- Jabba

You are posting this on the internet. A series of tubes global information network that allows us to share our ideas in real time. This network was created by the scientific method. Not by assertion or playing lawyer. Give that a think in your breakfast nook.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- That is also what you keep telling me, but I think you're wrong. Should I start trying to show why I think you're wrong?
--- Jabba

You should start trying to show you're right; so far, you've made a hash of it.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I think you should try to show why catsmate1's last post is wrong. Assuming you've given up showing the 14C data is wrong.

It's not like the material I posted is new to Jabba. He ignored it last time too.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- That is also what you keep telling me, but I think you're wrong. Should I start trying to show why I think you're wrong?
--- Jabba

What you should do is try to appreciate why I'm right.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- That is also what you keep telling me, but I think you're wrong. Should I start trying to show why I think you're wrong?
--- Jabba

Rich:

You do not have to explain that you are not interested in the truth, but instead are only interested in anything you can twist into the slightest, most fantastical suggestion that the cloth might ("must be") be the True Shroud™, despite its medieval provenance. Then, in your mind, that unlikely suggestion becomes The Truth™.

You never bothered to answer me as to why you don't just admit that you think the cloth is, in fact, by miraculous means, the True Shroud™. Why not just admit it, call it a miracle, soothe yourself that your faith is intact, and "hae'done wi' it"? Reality is not on your side...

[dafydd]

Jabba, just say that god waved his magic wand and the thread can end.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I think you should try to show why catsmate1's last post is wrong. Assuming you've given up showing the 14C data is wrong.

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong. So, trying to show that Catsmate's last post was wrong is probably a good place to start.
--- Jabba

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong.

How do you figure that?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong. So, trying to show that Catsmate's last post was wrong is probably a good place to start.
--- Jabba

The problem with that is that unless you can directly show that the 14C data is wrong (i.e. demonstrate an undeniable sampling or procedural problem) you must, at some point, invoke a miracle to explain the 14C data.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong. So, trying to show that Catsmate's last post was wrong is probably a good place to start.
--- Jabba

Only a scientific refutation of the C14 dating will show it to be wrong.

[Jabba]

- In case you haven't noticed, I just started my new thread on "immortality."
--- Jabba

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In case you haven't noticed, I just started my new thread on "immortality."
--- Jabba

Great, another fantasy thread.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong. So, trying to show that Catsmate's last post was wrong is probably a good place to start.
--- Jabba

You are going off tangent on absolutely USELESS information which in no way WHATSOEVER impact the dating.

Anybody impartial would see how frigging ridiculous this is. By now the only conclusion can only be :

<SNIP>

Edited by LashL:

Removed breach.

* you have long recognized you lost the debate, but rather than admit it you just try to go for "length" and hope everybody else abandon the debate thus declaring victory by having the last word.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pakeha,
- I'm not refuting anything. So far, I'm just accepting that my evidence is weaker than I thought it was.
--- Jabba

Perhaps I chose my wording ill.
What is clear is that your own investigation both of the invisible weaving ploy and the existence of blood have undermined any credibility those claims had.

Originally Posted by Jabba

.. I came to the Randi forum to see if I could in fact defend my current position (that the Shroud is probably authentic) against serious skeptics.

I'll be looking forward to seeing any evidence that defends that position.

Originally Posted by catsmate1

It's already refuted garbage. ...The supposed blood on the shroud consists of two major pigments, vermilion and red ochre that were painted on by an artist, creating the perfect (utterly unrealistic) droplets and rivulets of "blood".

Bookmarked.
At the end of the day, the 'blood' is just wishful thinking.

[dafydd]

Even if it was blood, that would not aid Jabba's case.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Mike,
- This is what they keep telling me -- but, it just isn't my approach here.
- I came to the Randi forum to see if I could in fact defend my current position (that the Shroud is probably authentic) against serious skeptics. And, note that my position is only a "probably." My position is not that the Shroud is authentic.
--- Jabba

Your defence is like trying to arange battleships to blockade a rook in a game of chess--it shows that you don't know what you're talking about, down to the most basic level.

Quote:

- I'm not refuting anything.

This is true. You've been entirely unable to offer any coherent refutation of anything thus far in this thread.

Quote:

- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong.

And since we've shown that your notion that the presence of blood in no way proves anything you think it does (ie, it's not improbable that someone would paint it on, given the culture and other artifacts known at the time), you fail at the first hurdle. The fact that you refuse to recognize this--OR EVEN RESPOND--shows that you aren't interested in a serious conversation on this topic. You're preaching, Jabba. That's all.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...And since we've shown that your notion that the presence of blood in no way proves anything you think it does (ie, it's not improbable that someone would paint it on, given the culture and other artifacts known at the time), you fail at the first hurdle. ...

In these 107 pages, not one of Jabba's notions has stood up to examination, correct me if I'm wrong.

It will be interesting to see what he falls back on now that the patching and the blood have failed him.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Giordano,
- I haven't given up trying to show that 14C data is wrong -- but, the presence of blood on the Shroud is like my first premise in an extended syllogism that is supposed to show that the 14C data is wrong.

Rubbish. The supposed presence of blood is utterly unconnected with the radiocarbon dating. Neither is necessarily related to the other.

Originally Posted by Jabba

So, trying to show that Catsmate's last post was wrong is probably a good place to start.
--- Jabba

Feel free to try. You didn't manage it the last time.
You could start with listing the evidence for the presence of blood; what tests were performed, by whom, using what techniques/equipment and the exact results of them.

Originally Posted by pakeha

In these 107 pages, not one of Jabba's notions has stood up to examination, correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct. Lots of dodgy claims, utter lack of facts and evidence to support them

Originally Posted by pakeha

It will be interesting to see what he falls back on now that the patching and the blood have failed him.

Probably he'll just start repeating them. Again.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Rubbish. The supposed presence of blood is utterly unconnected with the radiocarbon dating.

I think Jabba is taking the idea of weighing up evidence far too literally, i.e. he thinks you can put the evidence for and against something on the two pans of some metaphorical scales and see which way they tip. He accepts that the carbon dating evidence is a huge weight on the "against authenticity" side of this particular argument, but believes that if can find enough pro-authenticity feathers he can pile them up on the other side of the scales until they tip that way.

It doesn't matter how many people point out to him that scientific arguments simply don't work like that, he's going to carry on doing it regardless.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I think Jabba is taking the idea of weighing up evidence far too literally, i.e. he thinks you can put the evidence for and against something on the two pans of some metaphorical scales and see which way they tip. He accepts that the carbon dating evidence is a huge weight on the "against authenticity" side of this particular argument, but believes that if can find enough pro-authenticity feathers he can pile them up on the other side of the scales until they tip that way.

It doesn't matter how many people point out to him that scientific arguments simply don't work like that, he's going to carry on doing it regardless.

He seems to simply not understand how science actually works.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not. Their tests showed the presence of a porphyrin (many of which exist, including in plants, the likely source of the pigments used to create the shroud), iron and protein (both of which, even together, certainly don't indicate blood)...

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

Feel free to do so. Remember details of the tests, who ran them and the results they showed. Not just your usual selection of unsubstantiated claims.

And may I suggest you keep notes on what's been discussed? It would save time and eliminate the continual repetition and rehashing of points.

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

20 (twenty) years

[pakeha]

Heller and Adler?
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abs...=ao-19-16-2742

Here's an interesting take on their paper:
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...s-now-present/

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

It's largely irrelevant one way or the other. If you examined most of my clothing, you'd find blood on it. I tend to bleed a lot (working with sharp metal will do that). That doesn't mean that my blue jeans or t-shirts are the burial shroud of Christ. Furthermore, the thing was IN A FIRE. That's not exactly a safe place to be. People tend to bleed when rescuing things from fires. I've seen it first-hand. So even if there was blood, and even if it wasn't put there by an artist (something you've in no way even attempted to demonstrate), it STILL says NOTHING other than "There's blood here." There are far, far too many alternate explanations.

You are again excluding all the explanations you dislike, and only admitting the ones you do as possible. This is a critical failure in someone who claims to be a statistician. It is incompetence--and an incompetent statistician can't be trusted, so we can disregard your assessment of odds wholesale (and since all we have to go on are your assessments, that means your arguments just evaporated).

[David Mo]

The principal point is: The discipline who studies old blood is Archaeometry or Scientific Archaeology. How many scientific archaeological studies (by experts in the matter) of the Turin Shroud have been done? Answer: no one. Point two: Are classic tests for blood detection (McCrone) useful in archaeometry? Answer: No. There is an archeological study (independent) that had used the Adler&Heller’s methods for detecting ancient blood? Answer: No. A study made by non-experts and not replicated by true experts can be conclusive? Answer. No.

Draw your own conclusions, please.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Heller and Adler?
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abs...=ao-19-16-2742

Here's an interesting take on their paper:
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...s-now-present/

I like his medicinal leeches theory.

[Giordano]

I was surprised how little the H and A paper actually presented: a lot of negative results, a graph sowing the "blood" on the shroud did not match very well with real blood, and many assertions without data. No proof of blood by any means!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I was surprised how little the H and A paper actually presented: a lot of negative results, a graph sowing the "blood" on the shroud did not match very well with real blood, and many assertions without data. No proof of blood by any means!

Shroud Research:

1. Accept presence of blood as necessary to faith.

2. Look for any thing that helps with 1.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

I like his medicinal leeches theory.

Yeah.
It'd never have occurred to me, yet back in the day, as good a source of blood as any.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The sources for Adler and Heller's claim is twofold: Adler. Heller.

In other words, as has been pointed out to you about six different times (in differing fonts no less) the conclusions they draw are wildly incorrect considering their own evidence they found.

This obfuscation was humorous at first, but now it's just getting tiresome.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

[Aepervius]

@ the norseman, it has become beyond tiresome, he was told so many time in proper way by peoples. I'll avoid to comment on the issue , got my first warning for a long time, and I am not too keen on being banned.

[pakeha]

I used the search engine for the thread, Jabba, and found these posts bycatsmate1:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1401
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1623
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8512307

And this one of yours:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8545756

And from Dave Mo:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8551290
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8551822
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8601905


IanS:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...er#post8601826

And myself:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3903

Enjoy reading what's already been posted up on the subject.


ETA:
This list of deathless information was posted in reply to this:

Quote:

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

@ the norseman, it has become beyond tiresome, he was told so many time in proper way by peoples. I'll avoid to comment on the issue , got my first warning for a long time, and I am not too keen on being banned.

Yes, you're right; and with pakeha's comprehensive post above, it is more than painfully obvious at the dishonesty and manipulation going on here.

[pakeha]

Actually, I see the thread differently, perhaps because I know just how convincing the 'proofs' and 'evidence' of the pro-authenticity proponents are to those who haven't learned that supernatural 'relics' are simply flim-flam.

I think these discussions serve to create a pool of references on the subject of the TS thanks to the contributions of so many knowledgeable and articulate people.

Anyway, over time I'm going to fine down and hone proper reference entries to quantify the falsification of the following claims:

That blood was found on the TS.
That an 'invisible weave' caused confusion in the C14 dating.
That changes in the protocols diminish the reliability conclusions of the C14 dating.


It won't be anything original on my part- just a recopilation and ordering of information and sources from the discussions here at the JREF.
Call it my 2013 project.

Once I have rough working drafts going, I'll post them up for your target practise.

Now, back to your regular programming.
I'm looking forward to reading Jabba's evidence about the presence of blood on the TS.

ETA:
Thinking it over, is the subject even worth so much effort?
The TS is dated to the 14th century.
It's a medieval relic , acknowledged as such by the Vatican.

Jabba amuses themself by posting here and we amuse ourselves by replying.
At the end of the day, belief in fake relics will die away, just as belief in the magical properties of eclipses and thunder did.

Still, it IS amusing to see the pseudo-science of the TS treated here.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1
It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Originally Posted by Jabba
Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Originally Posted by Giordano

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

Giordano,

- Your first suggestion in 4267 is an article by Heller and Adler themselves, and you can't read the article w/o paying at least $15.
- Your second suggestion is just an “argument” -- with no citations -- written and posted by Colin Berry on his own blog. This would probably be a good starting point if Berry had provided citations.

- As they stand, I don’t think these “sources” help your cause very much.
- Can you point me to some of the others?
- Thanks.

--- Jabba

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Originally Posted by catsmate1
It's already refuted garbage.
1. Heller and Adler claimed to find blood on the cloth. Actually they did not...

Originally Posted by Jabba
Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

Giordano,

- Your first suggestion in 4267 is an article by Heller and Adler themselves, and you can't read the article w/o paying at least $15.
- Your second suggestion is just an “argument” -- with no citations -- written and posted by Colin Berry on his own blog. This would probably be a good starting point if Berry had provided citations.

- As they stand, I don’t think these “sources” help your cause very much.
- Can you point me to some of the others?
- Thanks.

--- Jabba

So you are admitting that you haven't even read the Heller and Adler article, and yet you are using it as proof of blood on the Shroud.

And by omission you admit you haven't read the many posts linked to by Pakeha showing that the article you haven't read is flawed.

Methinks the judge would find you in contempt.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Catsmate,
- What are your sources for this claim?
--- Jabba

I've already dealt with this, as have others, at length. Stop wasting time demanding we was time repeatedly debunk your rubbish.
Your claim of blood, your job to support with. With facts and evidence.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

This is absolutely ridiculous.

The sources for Adler and Heller's claim is twofold: Adler. Heller.

In other words, as has been pointed out to you about six different times (in differing fonts no less) the conclusions they draw are wildly incorrect considering their own evidence they found.

This obfuscation was humorous at first, but now it's just getting tiresome.

Yeah, well what can you expect from someone who's admitted that his belief in the shroud's authenticity trumps actual facts.

Originally Posted by Giordano

Jabba,
Do you read anyone's posts to this thread other than your own? You can find multiple sources for these sources, including one just a few posts above your own (4267). Even if you are pretending to be a lawyer, you need to listen to the opposing side's case if you hope for your side to prevail.

I repeat, what can you expect from someone who's admitted that his belief desperate need to believe to believe, to shore up his faith, in the shroud's authenticity trumps actual facts.

Originally Posted by Garrette

So you are admitting that you haven't even read the Heller and Adler article, and yet you are using it as proof of blood on the Shroud.

Are we really surprised? Jabba's been shown to not bother to read the crap he claims supports his beliefs before.

Originally Posted by Garrette

And by omission you admit you haven't read the many posts linked to by Pakeha showing that the article you haven't read is flawed.

Methinks the judge would find you in contempt.

Well he already has my contempt.