Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Shr...ory&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/in...-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

Why would the Catholic Church want to disprove the shroud?

[Jabba]

tsig,
- It wouldn't.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Shr...ory&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/in...-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

Are you making any attempt here?
One of your links is to Rogers paper, this has already been dealt with, including his lies about the area used for sampling.

Most of the others repeat the lie that the sample selected for ¹⁴C analysis was from a patch, this has also been covered both here and in material linked to (which I can only assume you haven't bothered to even look at).
You also link the the CSICOP article, which was linked to earlier, as if it supports you "argument"; in fact Nickell comprehensively rebuts the various attempts to discredit the ¹⁴C dating an the medieval origin of the cloth.

Try again.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

The following list of articles re the carbon dating is long, but could be much longer. While waiting for your responses, I’ll try to track down all “peer-reviewed” articles re the carbon dating. I know that there isn’t very many.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Shr...ory&id=3110899, Breault
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, Marino and Prior
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/in...-Vanililin.htm, Vanillin
http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf, Ray Rogers
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/, Joe Nickell
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html, Porter
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/vanhaelst8.pdf, Statistics

You are not listing proper scientific references.

What you are listing above appear to be articles written about what are claimed to be scientific reports.

Just list the actual references to the research journals. Eg you need to give a page and vol reference to papers published in proper journals such as Phys Rev or J.Am.Chem Soc.

The only such Shroud Paper that I know of is the one by Ray Rogers which is famous for somehow having got past the editor of Spectrochim Acta.

However, iirc that particular Rogers paper is extremely weak to say the least. And although Spectrochim Acta is a real journal, it is not a first rank research Journal, and the editor was presumably unaware that Ray Rogers was writing as a religious shroud believer and a member of STURP … an organisation which afaik had been trying for decades to fool the editors of various science journals into allowing one of their religious papers to get through … presumably so that they could ever after claim to have published genuine scientific peer reviewed evidence in favour of the Shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus. That is what's known as an attempted fraud.

You need to give proper references to publications in genuine high level science research journals.

[Jabba]

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

tsig,
- It wouldn't.

The Papal Custodians of the Shroud in Turin were not pleased.
They had been responsible for selecting the sample from a corner
of the cloth. They had ignored scientific protocols to which they
had previously agreed. These protocols called for multiple samples
from multiple locations. And in 2002, during a restoration of the
shroud, they had examined the area from which the samples were
cut and had not found any visual evidence of mending

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

I'm not interested in so-called "articles" (and neither should you be). I'm interested in the fact that the only genuine scientific tests that have ever been done on the shroud are the C14 tests that were done in 1988 (more could have been done since then, but the Vatican refuses).

That scientifically valid dating shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the shroud almost certainly dates from 1260AD to 1390AD. Which just so happens, "coincidently", to be the same time when that particular shroud was first produced.

If you want to overturn those C14 results, then no amount of wishful religiously driven thinking will do that. The task of the shroud believers is simple and straight forward - you have to produce genuine modern independent scientific publications which accurately date the shroud to a range entirely outside that provided by the 1988 radiocarbon tests ...

... where are those scientifically valid tests that overturn the C14 dating?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Please direct me again to the articles you guys wish me to address.
- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.
- Also, note that I did point out that I would be looking for relevant peer-reviewed articles -- and, I think I suggested that you guys do that also.

You are the one making the claims, that the radiocarbon dating isn't accurate, that blood was found on the cloth et cetera; it is up to you to justify these claims with facts, evidence and science, if you can.
Don't expect others to help you justify your beliefs.

[Leumas]

It always amazes me how theists cannot recognize the scam of their own religion.

The amazing thing is that in other ways most are in fact quite rational. If I tried to present a theist with a one pound gold bar and told him that I would trade him it for $100 he most likely would want to test the gold content in the bar before forking over $100.

Now if I tell him that he can take a scraping and test it and the test comes back negative for gold.....would he buy it if I tell him that he must have made the test wrong or some other such types of contortions? And even if he were to concede but then demand a second test would he be satisfied if I told him that he cannot do that since it would reduce the size of the bar or some other such writhing?

Would he go for such shenanigans? Would he buy my gold bar still after all that?

I very much doubt it......

So why is it that the very exact grifts are not rejected by theists when it comes to religious stuff? If they are so sharp and wary of grifters in normal everyday transactions and practical life.....why do they allow themselves to suspend that skeptical mindset when it comes to THEIR religion....they don't do it for other religions mind you.

If the Shroud of Turin was the Shroud of Mecca instead and the very same tomfoolery was being done by Moslims I doubt any Christian would swallow it. In fact they would laugh their heads off.

So why is it that they cannot apply the very same cynicism to their religion?

It is not just mere BLIND prejudice..... they demonstrate a lot more intelligence and discerning perspicacity in almost every other way.

I think TRIBALISM is a very deeply ingrained instinct and much like sexual desire and need for breathing, it might be that TRIBALISM is just that powerful.

ETA: Ah.... and I forgot to add..... this tribalism hording instinct is not just for religions and theists only. The blinding prejudice of tribalism can manifest itself in people who claim to be skeptics too. All it takes is emotional investment. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful catalyst for all sorts of delusional irrationality and Tribalism is so deeply ingrained that I think it is almost impossible except for the most staunchly rational to break out of the primordial hording imperative.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.

This has been done - you've just linked back to the same articles again. If you're not going to address the specifics, what's the point in the discussion?

[Jabba]

- Anyway, I'll go back and look at the web pages you guys have referred me to and see if I can find any real evidence against the claims on those pages...

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But also, please point out some of the specifics in the articles I proposed that you believe have been disproved.

Why don't you try reading the thread you're posting in? You'll find that it's already been done, before you posted the articles.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Anyway, I'll go back and look at the web pages you guys have referred me to and see if I can find any real evidence against the claims on those pages...

Instead of looking at any web page, why don't you just read the paper in Nature where the results of the original 1988 radiocarbon tests were reported.

Or if that is not available to you, then just read Harry Gove's book describing the entire 10 year process. You could probably buy a copy on eBay for just $1.

Nothing new has happened since then. If it had, then it would have been published in a real science journal.

[Captain_Swoop]

Funny how proponents of the Shroud being genuine ignore the other Shroud Threads that go over the same old ground.

They go away for a while then come back with the same arguments hoping people have forgotten about the last time they were discussed and expect it all to be refuted again from scratch.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by azzthom

Catsmate1 posted this link earlier in the thread, now seems like a good time to re-post it. It is about the claims that the dating process was invalid, and shows just how wrong those claims are.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...om_whole_cloth

Azzthom,
- In my own defense:
1) I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.
2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.
3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.
4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.
5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

[azzthom]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Azzthom,
- In my own defense:
1) I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.
2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.
3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.
4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.
5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

Jabba,

1)Catsmate1 posted the CSICOP link in post 28 of this thread.
2)??
3)Joe is a professional, and well respected, investigator.
4)As opposed to those unbiased employees of the vatican?
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walter McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

I am providing another link for you, this one consists of both Pro and Anti authenticity articles, books etc
You need to read the work of both sides, and compare and contrast the evidence, and take note of assumptions, and speculation.

http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by azzthom

Jabba,

1)Catsmate1 posted the CSICOP link in post 28 of this thread.
2)??
3)Joe is a professional, and well respected, investigator.
4)As opposed to those unbiased employees of the vatican?
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walter McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

I am providing another link for you, this one consists of both Pro and Anti authenticity articles, books etc
You need to read the work of both sides, and compare and contrast the evidence, and take note of assumptions, and speculation.

http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/

Azzthom,
- Re #1. Oh. Thanks.
- Re #2. Someone above thought that I thought That the Joe Nickell article was supportive – I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that.
- Re #3. But, who is Joe well-respected By? And also, there are all sorts of well-respected investigators -- and scientists -- who disagree with Joe, and write about why they disagree with him.
- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?
- Re #5. No. I know all about Walter McCrone. I have his book, "Judgment Day…" and have read much of what he has written -- and even corresponded with ( by e-mail and phone) the current Executive Editor of the International Journal (The Microscope) that Walter left behind. And besides, Walter didn't demolish Rogers' claims -- Walter died two or three years before Rogers published his paper in Thermochimica Acta.. Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.
- I'll check out the site you gave me, but would still like someone to point me to the article where Rogers admits that thing about watercolor paint. I'm sure that I had seen a discussion of that issue before, and I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

[azzthom]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Azzthom,
- Re #1. Oh. Thanks.
- Re #2. Someone above thought that I thought That the Joe Nickell article was supportive – I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that.
- Re #3. But, who is Joe well-respected By? And also, there are all sorts of well-respected investigators -- and scientists -- who disagree with Joe, and write about why they disagree with him.
- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?
- Re #5. No. I know all about Walter McCrone. I have his book, "Judgment Day…" and have read much of what he has written -- and even corresponded with ( by e-mail and phone) the current Executive Editor of the International Journal (The Microscope) that Walter left behind. And besides, Walter didn't demolish Rogers' claims -- Walter died two or three years before Rogers published his paper in Thermochimica Acta.. Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.
- I'll check out the site you gave me, but would still like someone to point me to the article where Rogers admits that thing about watercolor paint. I'm sure that I had seen a discussion of that issue before, and I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

Jabba,

Here is another, more recently updated, link on the shroud. There is a summary of 'the story so far' featuring the guys we've been discussing. At the bottom of the page there is a 'latest news' section. This was last updated on the 18th of February this year, so it may be worth keeping an eye on for future developments.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html


McCrone did indeed demolish Rogers' assertions from beyond the grave. Rogers' claimed that cotton fibres and the dye in a binding medium that he suggested were "Gum", were only found in the tested area. McCrone reported both from the main body of the shroud before Rogers did his tests.

There is a lot more reading suggested at the bottom of the page, and I realise that this requires a significant time investment. The problem is that if we pick and choose the evidence to consider, we end up with meaningless conclusions. I have placed many links on this thread, from both sides of the argument, and have yet to read anything convincing from the pro-authentic side. I cannot tell you what to believe, and wouldn't if I could, but if you hold that the shroud is authentic because of faith and belief, then there is no piece of evidence that will convince you otherwise. By the same token, We who hold that the shroud is a fake will never be convinced otherwise, because we do not share that faith or belief.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Funny how proponents of the Shroud being genuine ignore the other Shroud Threads that go over the same old ground.

They go away for a while then come back with the same arguments hoping people have forgotten about the last time they were discussed and expect it all to be refuted again from scratch.

It's not just the shroudies, most woosters do it to cover their lack of evidence. Just look at DOC's threads or randman's anti-evolution rants.
Though JB posted the same debunked nonsense several times in his abortion causes breast cancer thread, often just days apart.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I'm pretty sure that I was the first one to bring up this Joe Nickell article. Catsmate was just referring back to my reference.

Not true.

Originally Posted by Jabba

2) I knew that Joe's article did not support my cause -- but it was on my list, so I included it in my references. I started to point this out, and explain why I was referring to his article (when I first provided the different articles) but explaining proved difficult, so I let it go.

Can you at least try to post coherently?

Originally Posted by Jabba

3) According to what I have read, Joe is not a scientist, and has never written a peer-reviewed article.

Irrelevant. His facts and data are sound.

Originally Posted by Jabba

4) Joe is paid by the CSI to debunk the paranormal.

Also irrelevent. And an attempt at well poisoning. Why not attack his facts?

Originally Posted by Jabba

5) So far, I can't find where Rogers “admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus." Can you, or someone else, point me to this admission?
- Thanks.

You're the one attempting to show the shroud isn't a medieval fake, do your own research or admit defeat.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by azzthom

<snip>
5)I think you are getting Joe confused with Walte r McCrone. He was a microscopist, and considered the leading expert in the field. It was he who demolished Rogers' claims.

Technically McCrone's study (microscopical examination, analysis of alleged "blood" et cetera) came first, several decades before Rogers attempt to discredit the ¹⁴C analysis; however Rogers utterly failed to rebut McCrone's analysis, and lied several times in his paper.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #3. But, who is Joe well-respected By? And also, there are all sorts of well-respected investigators -- and scientists -- who disagree with Joe, and write about why they disagree with him.

Try dealing with the facts not attempting argument from authority.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #4. Are you sure that Joe isn't just as biased as those in the Vatican?

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #5. No. I know all about Walter McCrone. I have his book, "Judgment Day…" and have read much of what he has written -- and even corresponded with ( by e-mail and phone) the current Executive Editor of the International Journal (The Microscope) that Walter left behind. And besides, Walter didn't demolish Rogers' claims -- Walter died two or three years before Rogers published his paper in Thermochimica Acta..

Actually he did, despite doing his main work on the shroud in 1978..........
Rogers claimed that certain materials (a dye composed of madder root and fibres of cotton) were found only in the area of the shroud sampled for radiocarbon testing, thus lending credence to his hypothesis that the area was a medieval patch; McCrone's examination of the cloth, in addition to showing that the area sampled wasn't part of a patch (and thus 'pre-bunking' Rogers), also showed these fibres and dye existed in other parts of the shroud.
Further Rogers case is based on the lie that he had access to fibres from the sample removed for radiocarbon analysis (untrue, they were destroyed).

Originally Posted by Jabba

Also, according to Wikipedia, Rogers published more than 40 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Irrelevent.

Originally Posted by Jabba

I'm pretty sure that Nickell was taking Rogers' comment out of context, and that Rogers' logic wasn't "tortuous" at all.

Your surety is worthless, show how the remarks were taken out of context.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by azzthom

...I cannot tell you what to believe, and wouldn't if I could, but if you hold that the shroud is authentic because of faith and belief, then there is no piece of evidence that will convince you otherwise. By the same token, We who hold that the shroud is a fake will never be convinced otherwise, because we do not share that faith or belief.

Azzthom,

- Just to let you know, I do appreciate your patience.

- I don't really "hold that the Shroud is authentic." Or at least, that's not how I would say it. What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.
- I can honestly say that I don't base my belief about the evidence favoring authenticity on "faith." I wish I had faith -- I suspect that real faith is quite functional.
- Though I would have to admit that I do want to believe that it's authentic -- which of course has an effect upon my judgment... But then, aren't you guys also biased -- just in the opposite direction?

- You probably know this already, but the best site for 'hearing' the authenticity side is http://shroud.com/, run by Barrie Schwortz.

- I'll get to your recommended sites.
- Thanks.

P.S. To see where I claim to be in regard to Christianity, you should check out http://messiahornot.com/index.php, and http://messiahornot.com/Biography2.php.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by Jabba

... I don't really "hold that the Shroud is authentic." Or at least, that's not how I would say it. What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.
...

But all of the evidence so far presented shows that the Shroud was made some time in the 14th century, so unless you are using some new definition of "authenticity", you are quite simply wrong about this.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes people are just wrong. There really is nothing left to debate, unless you want to talk about the identity of the 14th century artist who produced it...

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Brainache

But all of the evidence so far presented shows that the Shroud was made some time in the 14th century, so unless you are using some new definition of "authenticity", you are quite simply wrong about this...

Brainache,
- Take a look at http://shroud.com/, by Barrie Schwortz.
- Note that except for the scientists who did the carbon dating, the only scientist with hands-on experience with the Shroud (or with "sticky tape" samples taken from the Shroud) arguing against Shroud validity is Walter McCrone (who only had sticky tape samples provided to him by Alan Adler to examine). Whereas, numerous Scientists with hands-on experience have written peer-reviewed articles arguing for the Shroud.

[Jabba]

- From http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104:
The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
- To back that up, here's a nice paper by Alan Adler, a Jew (and not expecting, or hoping for, authenticity), about the apparent blood on the Shroud. Look up "serum clot" in the paper. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- If you have objections, let me know. In this sub-thread, I will decide which objection to address first.

[realpaladin]

Jabba, could/would you please answer me this question? It has been burning since the start of this thread.

*If it were conclusively shown that the shroud comes from near the time it needs to come... what features does it have that make it a shroud wherein Jesus could have been wrapped and not someone else?*

After all, at some point everyone in that century died and there must have been a few 10.000's of people being wrapped in shrouds...

Let me clarify my puzzlement:

If in 2000 years time someone would produce a jacket and say 'This is the jacket that J.F. Kennedy wore on the day that he was shot. There is blood on it, the date is right, the size is right.', what, in your opinion, would be needed to authenticate that jacket as *the* jacket?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

What I say is that I believe that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin clearly favors its authenticity… To me, that's a little different.

Well you just cannot be serious!

There is no "evidence" supporting any "authenticity" of the shroud.

The only genuine valid evidential study that's ever been done on the shroud remains the C14 that was done in 1988.

That is the only real evidence that's ever been deduced about the "authenticity" shroud.

If you think that the C14 supports authenticity of the shroud then something here is very wrong indeed.

The stuff that you are talking about is not "evidence". What that is, is a whole bunch of invented stories from religious propaganda groups who's mission in life is to promote Christianity.

It's quite pointless anyone, on either side, arguing about such things as whether or not a similar image can be reproduced, or whether the cloth is of a particular weave or whether certain rare pollen grains are present, or whether there is human blood on the shroud, etc. etc. That's all been completely by-passed by the undeniable fact that the shroud has been independently tested by 3 separate radiocarbon labs, using a scientifically established technique which has been verified literally hundreds of thousands of times as being very accurate indeed, and the results from all 3 labs, inc. all their tests on back-up samples of the shroud, all gave the same date range of circa. 1260AD to 1390AD.

Those are the only genuine scientifically accurate test that have ever been done on the shroud. And they all gave precisely the same answer.

It's not an absolute 100% total certainty that the shroud is only 700 years old. Nothing in this world is literally 100% certain - there's even a small chance that evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all entirely wrong. But the odds against that are not even worthy of discussion.

The C14 results tell us beyond all possible doubt that the overwhelming likelihood, contrary to what you just said above(!), is that as far as anyone can honestly tell the shroud almost certainly dates from that period very close to around 1300AD, ie about 700 year old.

And the only way to obtain genuine "evidence" to cast any more light on that, is to perform some new scientific test which is even more accurate than the C14. But of course the Vatican refuses to do that.

The "preponderance of evidence" that you are talking about, amounts only to those C14 tests ... there is no other genuine evidence to accurately and objectively date the shroud. In fact, that is precisely why the C14 was done in the first place!

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- From http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=104:
The involved scientists claiming real blood based their conclusions upon several objective chemistry-based, and physics-based tests, whereas the one involved scientist claiming otherwise based his conclusion on microscopy – requiring a much more subjective analysis.
- To back that up, here's a nice paper by Alan Adler, a Jew (and not expecting, or hoping for, authenticity), about the apparent blood on the Shroud. Look up "serum clot" in the paper. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf
- If you have objections, let me know. In this sub-thread, I will decide which objection to address first.

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Jabba, could/would you please answer me this question? It has been burning since the start of this thread.

*If it were conclusively shown that the shroud comes from near the time it needs to come... what features does it have that make it a shroud wherein Jesus could have been wrapped and not someone else?*

After all, at some point everyone in that century died and there must have been a few 10.000's of people being wrapped in shrouds...

Let me clarify my puzzlement:

If in 2000 years time someone would produce a jacket and say 'This is the jacket that J.F. Kennedy wore on the day that he was shot. There is blood on it, the date is right, the size is right.', what, in your opinion, would be needed to authenticate that jacket as *the* jacket?

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)
- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.
- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.
- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

- Thanks for the question.

[gambling_cruiser]

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

Ladewig,

- Good question!

- For one thing, the only hands on scientist arguing against authenticity, Walter McCrone, was adamant about there being no blood on the Shroud.
- Also, the apparent blood stains on the Shroud could not have been painted -- they have the characteristics (not visible to the naked eye) of real wounds, they were on the Shroud before the image and were established on the Shroud by a different process than was the image.

- Those answers are rather superficial, and I'll gladly (try to) provide the specific evidence for those claims when specifically asked. Just that I have miles to go before I sleep, and I had best keep moving.
- Thanks.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

[gambling_cruiser]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Yes, just but until shown wrong they are the only scientific facts.
And how could the dating done by three independent labs be wrong?
Only if the vatican had given them access to the wrong material.
Are the scientists of the vatican ignorants (for not knowing they had given the wrong parts of the shroud) or pranksters (which did knowingly supply the wrong fabric)?
Jabba you seem to be desperatly grasping for straws!
Just face it - without new C14 tests there is no way to show the existing datings are wrong. Until new results for C14 datings come up all speculation about how the picture of the shroud could be authentic is mental masturbation.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)

For things to be classified atypical you would need either an 'all agreed upon' standard or you would need to have documentation of a lot of cases.
I have done some work for 'body part matching' software for disaster areas (yes, it is as grisly as it sounds) and I can tell you that even within one body (when you know there are not more than let's say 20 bodies around) there is a lot of possibilities for mismatching.
Just the database for 'standardized' tattoo's is over 8000 entries. That is 'standardized', meaning that I can not go lower than 8000 different 'types' of tattoo.

Saying something is atypical is extremely hard and in fact has not been achieved in current-day technology *with* all of our enormous capacity for data.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns,"

If we are going with 'reasonable', then I would say it is not very reasonable that the people who loved him would have not at least taken off that symbol of mockery and despise.

Would you leave markings of torture and ridicule on a loved one when you put them into their final resting place?

Originally Posted by Jabba

spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

This suggests that there is a complete record of all the other n x 1000 of 'criminals' that have been crucified?

Going with the JFK analogy again, that same month at least a few 1000 people across the planet had similar jackets that got blood on them.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.

The same one, with status and all, who did not remove the crown of thorns but wrapped it tightly around the head...

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.

That may have been atypical, but if we can not get the dating right to a few decades, how come we 'can' get it right within a few days that the shroud was removed? I am curious to see which scientist proved that, as it would need a full explanation on how the markings came onto the shroud.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

Where does that follow from? Again, it would need a full and airtight explanation on how the markings got onto the shroud to conclude the method of removal has to be X or had to be Y.

And as for availability... we can not even go that far because we do not know the method.

I can tell you of horrible ways Nature can completely make a body disappear. In days. No methodology needed. But again, since we do not *know* how the markings got onto the shroud, we can not say what would have disturbed them.

For all we know the shroud can easily handle a very rough treatment.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

No problem, take your time. I am extremely interested in doing this small forensics discussion, as the people who can do a 2000+ year cold case could immensely help me in my job.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Thanks for the question.

And thank you for taking time to respond. I do hope you can find the energy to continue.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?).

How about carbon dating that shows the jacket came from the year 3260, not 1960?

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by carlitos

How about carbon dating that shows the jacket came from the year 3260, not 1960?

That at least proves it was *not* JFK.

But I am trying to find out how people who are doing a 2000 year old cold case can identify a 'garment'/'cover' as belonging to a specific single person.

I talked this over with a crew of people who do this for current-day events and they say it can't be done. And if it can be done, they immediately want to hire the people that can do this as it would alleviate their task enormously.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Take a look at http://shroud.com/, by Barrie Schwortz.

Worthless propagandising.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Note that except for the scientists who did the carbon dating, the only scientist with hands-on experience with the Shroud (or with "sticky tape" samples taken from the Shroud) arguing against Shroud validity is Walter McCrone

Given how carefully STURP selected those who had access to the shroud is this surprising? And who'd be writing articles in reviewed journals about the shroud anyway? Except to a few desperate believers the issue is closed; the shroud is a medieval forgery, as shown by the evidence.

Originally Posted by Jabba

(who only had sticky tape samples provided to him by Alan Adler to examine).

An outright lie, either your or another believers that you unquestioningly parrot. The samples were selected under the auspices of STURP, based on detailed examination of the shroud and examined by McCrone and others (including Schwalbe and Skirius).
In fact the actual tape lifts were carried out by Ray Rogers, you can't even get that right. And McCrone examined the shroud in 1978.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Whereas, numerous Scientists with hands-on experience have written peer-reviewed articles arguing for the Shroud.

Citations required.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I apologize if I missed the reason in a previous post, but why is the presence of blood an issue at all? I do not see how blood adds to or subtracts from the evidence of either position?

Shroudies, at least some of them, believe the image in the cloth was made by contact with the blood of Jesus, ergo the stains must be blood. Of course the evidence shows the image to be painted............

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

RealPaladin,

- I'm not sure, but various more specific, and atypical, characteristics that would fit with what we know about JFK and the shooting. (DNA?)
- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

- The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.
- Also, to appear as it does, the Shroud would have had to be removed from the victim within a few days of his burial -- which would be especially atypical.
- Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

- I think there's more, but I can't remember them right now.

- Thanks for the question.

All these facts prove that the faker knew his bible.