Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence--- Jabba

after years of being immersed in this subject you're having a hard time finding qualified evidence

go on, make the mental leap into working out why that is, then do the decent thing and admit it

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

But you have been touting your evidence for decades before this forum and months on this forum.

You're just now beginning to look for it? Or are you finally realizing that what you have presented is invalid?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

It looks like we're in for a very, very long wait.
Or, you could just agree that no such evidence exists

[pakeha]

If the wait gets too long I'll start posting up my photos from the Basilica of the Holy Blood...
And quoting from the literature.

[Randomity99]

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. I probably agree with Randi when he exposes fake psychics, UFO or bigfoot claims, because those things cannot withstand a very simple scientific examination.

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud: I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find. If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

[Randomity99]

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

1) Straw man arguments: don’t waste time on claims of resurrection energy or cosmic forces etc., because the shroud sites don’t rely on those. If you want to win an argument you must engage your opponent’s BEST evidence. How did the accurate perspective information get onto the cloth? People will speculate endlessly about how the image may have been formed. Duplicating it in ALL its significant qualities will be the only real accomplishment. And so far that has not been done.
2) Moving the goal line: there are claims here that no peer-reviewed studies admit the shroud’s mysterious properties. But when Rogers published in Thermochimica Acta he is then dismissed as not legitimate. His claims have been verified by two other independent sources. This is documented. You can easily find it if you want to. Science is seldom unanimous in agreement, so is there any amount of scientific documentation that will convince you there are unexplained properties to the shroud? I doubt it.
3) Relying on discredited science yourself: McCrone’s claims about the image have been shown erroneous by several others, and again this is well documented. You can see it first hand by simply looking at microscopic photos of the image threads compared to threads with pigment on them. The overwhelming conclusion of those who examined the image is that the image is formed by fibrils darkened by a chemical change, not a foreign element deposited on them. McCrone was not a chemist and never examined the shroud himself. His claims about both the shroud and the Vinland map are strongly denounced by scientists with more pertinent expertise than his.
4) Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. .

I'm guessing here that you haven't read the thread in its entirety, especially the parts where the sceptics went out and joined shroud foruns to discuss the evidence with the believers or the part where it hasn't raised any controversy at all, unless you count where the sceptics have been asking for a credible refutation of the C14 evidence from page 1 and where after 47 pages the shroudie has yet to post it,

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

which one do you post at ?

[Blue Mountain]

Hi Randomity99; welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

[snip]

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

[snip]

As far as the skeptics are concerned, this thread is ample evidence of the power of religion and belief to cloud people's minds.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

[snip]

4)Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

[/snip]

Let's put this very succinctly:

The carbon-14 testing definitively dated the shroud to the thirteenth century. So long as that result stands, the shroud cannot be the burial robe of a man from the first century.

All other points are moot.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case. It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

It's only a different case because it's linked to religious belief. If Piltdown man had originally been claimed as a divine image of Jesus, then there would still be hundreds of pages of debates going on. Likewise, if the shroud were originally claimed to be the death mask of Plato, when debunked no-one would bother arguing against the C14 evidence.

[Giordano]

Randomity99,
Welcome to the thread. I do urge you to, if you haven't already, read the entire thread so we do't have to rehash points already covered in detail. The issue really is a single crucial point: the 14C data clearly dates the shroud to the 13th century era, and therefore convincingly document it caannot be the burial shroud of Christ. If you wish to argue it is miraculous, okay by me, but unless you can scientifically prove the 14C data is wrong, then you need to argue it is the miraculous bathrobe of Mohammedan, or the magic bedspread of a Buddhist monk. That's the point that ultimately Jabba dmitted he had no evidence against, and the key one for you to address.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

Well, the above is very clearly an admission that you do NOT have any such evidence!

That's exactly what you have been asked for the last 40 pages!

With the above you are now finally admitting, apparently unintentionally, that you most definitely do not have any genuine scientific paper which has ever disputed the C14 dates.

Right. Well that’s the end of the discussion then!

[pakeha]

Welcome to JREF, Randomity!
I'm glad you're here.
I enjoy seeing new points of view on subjects which have been discussed here over the years. You might consider checking out some of the older threads on the subject here.

I have some questions about your two posts.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

...I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud: I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find. If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

Please feel free to post up the names of those forums. I'd love to go over there and discuss the TS with pro-shroud defenders. And yes, I think you should post up the places you want us to go to. That's to ensure we're all on the same page, you know.

I take it your post is an invitation to discuss the TS on one or more of these sites?
Or are you here to discuss the TS at JREF?

Originally Posted by Randomity99

In the meantime, here are some mistakes made by the skeptics here:

1)... don’t waste time on claims of resurrection energy or cosmic forces etc., because the shroud sites don’t rely on those.

Could you point out a specific case where someone here mentioned either 'resurrection energy or cosmic forces', please?
Obviously you think we've spent time on that or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

If you want to win an argument you must engage your opponent’s BEST evidence.

Well, if you've read here, then you know that the debunkers of the TS often take the line that the dating of the TS, accepted by the Vatican, is quite enough to show it's mundane origin. Duplicating it is simply not an issue.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

2) Moving the goal line: there are claims here that no peer-reviewed studies admit the shroud’s mysterious properties. But when Rogers published in Thermochimica Acta he is then dismissed as not legitimate. His claims have been verified by two other independent sources.

I'd be grateful if you posted up those independant sources, please. And yes, I ask you to link them to ensure we're talking about the same thing.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

3) Relying on discredited science yourself: McCrone’s claims about the image have been shown erroneous by several others, and again this is well documented.

What do McCrones claims have to do with the dating of the TS?

Originally Posted by Randomity99

4) Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this. I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science. Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot. Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument. Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

That's an interesting point of view, but I think it's important to take into account the Vatican has accepted the dating of the TS to medieval times.

As far as I know, that date has not been credibly challenged by the scientific community. As of yet.
It will be fascinating to learn how the TS was done, of course.

As I mentioned above, I was recently in the Basilica of the Holy Blood, where there is a cloth claimed to be the one Joseph of Arimethea used to clean Jesus' corpse.
I myself have never quite understood why pro-shroud defenders think Jesus' corpse would have been readied for burial without being washed and anointed.
What do you think, Randomity?

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

I wonder, is the evidence which shows the carbon dating to be wrong hiding somewhere, and no shroud-proponents have found it yet despite years of searching? Or is the carbon dating correct, as the Vatican accepts?

Rational people will lean towards the second choice. But people who require a mediaeval forgery to be a 1st century artefact, perhaps in order to bolster their faith, will lean towards the first. It is a sad state of affairs.

Welcome to the forum, Randomity99. What are your views on the carbon dating? Because really, unless you can show that dating to be in error, any other points are moot.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this thread -- I've just had a hard time finding satisfactory evidence... and, didn't want to waste your time with more excuses.
- I'll be back as soon as I can put together something with some hope of passing your standards.
--- Jabba

- I should have been more specific. In the above, I was referring to only the carbon dating sub-issue.

- Back in 1786, I had said:
- OK. At the moment, I see three main issues that you guys wish me to address:
1) How much I know about carbon dating.
2) Can I point to any independent scientific paper arguing against the dating?
3) What does my claim that no one has been able to duplicate the image on the Shroud have to do with the carbon dating?

- Then, after several responses, in 1794 I said:
- OK, scientific papers it is.
- I'll be back.

- So anyway, I haven't been able to find -- re the carbon dating --what I was expecting to find, and you guys have continually told me not to say anything unless I have something useful to say. So I kept looking and also analyzing my situation. Not to worry -- I still have some excuses up my sleeve.
- Hopefully, I'll be back shortly.
--- Jabba

[pakeha]

No worries, Jabba.
I have a variety of photos of the basilica of the Holy Blood to post up.
They (the devout) think Jesus was washed before entombed.
And have the cloth to prove it!


The TS crowd is so much more...rustic.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I still have some excuses up my sleeve.

Hasn't anyone told you, excuses instead of evidence is a FAIL

[Jabba]

Randomity99,

- Thanks for your support. You're the first. Hope I don't disappoint.

- My basic claim is that the great preponderance of evidence actually favors Shroud authenticity -- as strange as that sounds.
- I think that the only substantial evidence against authenticity is the RC dating and the evidence against the supernatural. Essentially, it seems to me, everything else lines up with authenticity.
- And personally, I think that there is plenty of reasonable doubt concerning both of those, so the remaining evidence needs to be taken into account.
- Hopefully, that's clear -- and not, off-putting.

--- Jabba

[Gao]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

But it has been, and there isn't. Even this thread is really just going around in circles about the carbon dating. Even without that immensely strong evidence of the carbon dating, there's literally nothing I've seen that gives any indication that the shroud predates the time it was "found". It's the religious equivalent of a guy claiming that a weird looking rock comes from an alien space ship. I simply see no reason to think that there's anything strange here in the first place.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

I’ve been reading the forums here with a bit of amusement about the shroud of Turin discussion. I probably agree with Randi when he exposes fake psychics, UFO or bigfoot claims, because those things cannot withstand a very simple scientific examination.

Neither can the shroud; all the science shows it to be a medieval fake.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case.

It's not actually. Another fake exploited to extract money from the gullible.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades.

Exactly. And all this study shows it to be a medieval fake.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here!

Less than the Patterson-Gilmore film and bigfoot in general. On occasion some believe turns up to proclaim it genuine. Alas the facts and evidence show otherwise.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

There isn't much to discuss about the shroud except the need the believers have for it to be real.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud:

Good, there isn't any so this will save time.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

I don’t need to. There are websites full of the data that anyone can find.

Alas this supposed "evidence" crumbles rapidly when examined by a perspective other than "the shroud must be real because I need it to be".

Originally Posted by Randomity99

If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

Why? So desperate shroudies can censor their posts? Squirm and evade? Start throwing insults?

[pakeha]

Do you have any idea how many holy blood relics there are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_o...ound_the_world

All of them authentic, of course.

Still, the real thing is in Bruges:
"The devotion to the Precious Blood was an especial phenomenon of Flemish piety in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that gave rise to the iconic image of Grace as the "Fountain of Life," filled with blood, pouring from the wounded "Lamb of God" or the "Holy Wounds" of Christ. The image, which was the subject of numerous Flemish paintings was in part spurred by the renowned relic of the Precious Blood, which had been noted in Bruges at least since the twelfth century[3] and which gave rise, from the late thirteenth century, to the observances, particular to Bruges, of the procession of the "Saint Sang" from its chapel.[4]"

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

<snippage of nonsense>

2) Moving the goal line: there are claims here that no peer-reviewed studies admit the shroud’s mysterious properties. But when Rogers published in Thermochimica Acta he is then dismissed as not legitimate.

Because his "science" was exposed as rubbish and utterly invalid. Hence his publication in that journal rather than Radiocarbon or Nature. He was also exposed as a liar.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

His claims have been verified by two other independent sources.

Citation required.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

This is documented. You can easily find it if you want to.

Why should I or anyone else do your work for you? Your claim, your burden of proof. If you can prove it that is.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Science is seldom unanimous in agreement, so is there any amount of scientific documentation that will convince you there are unexplained properties to the shroud?

What have you got?

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Relying on discredited science yourself: McCrone’s claims about the image have been shown erroneous by several others, and again this is well documented.

Again your claim, you get to prove it. Interestingly McCrone alone published more peer-reviewed papers exposing the shroud that all the shroudies put together.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

You can see it first hand by simply looking at microscopic photos of the image threads compared to threads with pigment on them. The overwhelming conclusion of those who examined the image is that the image is formed by fibrils darkened by a chemical change, not a foreign element deposited on them.

Lots of claims, I'm not seeing any citations.......

Originally Posted by Randomity99

McCrone was not a chemist and never examined the shroud himself.

Irrelevant attempt to distort noted. McCrone was a microscopist who examined fibres; the chemical analysis ( EDXRA) was done by others. Perhaps you should read his papers?

Originally Posted by Randomity99

His claims about both the shroud and the Vinland map are strongly denounced by scientists with more pertinent expertise than his.

Wow....................... This smear attempt is just silly. And, again, unsourced.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Selective credibility. Both sides of the shroud debate are guilty of this.

No, not really.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science.

Red herring. The bishop in question is not being cited as a scientific authority.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot.

I await your evidence for this claim.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument.

Showing their mistakes, biases and lies is though.

Originally Posted by Randomity99

Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims.

No. They're collections of dubious nonsense to reassure believers.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- My basic claim is that the great preponderance of evidence actually favors Shroud authenticity -- as strange as that sounds.

You keep claiming this, why not justify your claim?

Originally Posted by Jabba

I think that the only substantial evidence against authenticity is the RC dating and the evidence against the supernatural.

Rubbish. There are numerous other reasons why we know the shroud is a fake. They've been listed for your but you chose to ignore them.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Hopefully, that's clear -- and not, off-putting.

--- Jabba

its very clear, where you think a new evangelist has turned up you are happy to publically lie about your failure here to prove anything, despite claiming you could on page1. This is typical of people who have no faith of their own, that they happily lie to others with the hope that two people pretending to have faith is somehow worth something in the eyes of their absent Lord

read your bible, you're buying yourself passage on the bus to hell with this false witnessing.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Randomity99 View Post

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case.

It's not. You have precisely two options: show that the shroud was sufficiently contaminated to yield a 14th century date when it is in fact a cloth from the 1st century, or admit that the C14 dating is conclusive. I expect the same thing from you that I expected from Jabba: Please present the amount of contamination necessary to do this. The math is simple; just algebra.

If you're incapable of doing that, you simply don't know know enough about the systems in question to have an informed opinion on them. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of the matter. This is BASIC radiometric dating, the stuff that I at least learned in high school.

Quote:

Science is seldom unanimous in agreement, so is there any amount of scientific documentation that will convince you there are unexplained properties to the shroud?

This demonstrates your lack of understanding of how science works. All it will take is a single publication, stating two facts: the amount of contamination necessary to cause a 1st century cloth to date from the 14th century, and evidence that that amount of contamination is present.

What evidence will it take to convince YOU that the shroud IS fake?

Quote:

I have never seen so many skeptics ready to put their absolute faith in a 14th century bishop who knew nothing about modern science.

This demonstrates your first statement on this forum to be a lie. If you'd actually read the thread, you'd know that none of us is citing the 14th century bishop as proof that the shroud dates from the 14th century. What's being said is that that is the first time the shroud shows up in historical documents. That doesn't mean that the shroud can't be older, but it also doesn't mean it IS older. It merely gives a minimum age. The C14, until someone can demonstrate sufficient contamination to prove otherwise, is what gives a maximum age. The minimum and maximum age agree, which I have to tell you is kinda nice. That doesn't happen too often.

Quote:

Interesting when anyone expresses doubt about the shroud, they are an instant authority here, but anyone who simply claims science has not explained the image yet is instantly dismissed as a crackpot.

I've actually studied radiometric dating, and used it professionally. I do a lot of work at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. In fact, I've worked in some areas where the material dated using C14 was contaminated by older carbon--south of the Salton Sea in California there's mudpot volcanism, which has caused bulk C14 dates from the sediment to yield erroneously high dates (dating methods not subject to such contamination, such as biostratigraphy, show the error quite clearly).

In short, I actually AM an authority on this matter. I'm not even a self-appointed authority--this is part of what earns me my paycheck.

Now, what are YOUR qualifications for analyzing C14 dating methods and results?

Quote:

Calling someone names or dismissing their facts is not a scientific argument.

Actually, this happens a lot in science. Mostly at the conferences, after the talk is finished. And either way, if you'd read the thread you'd see that we don't merely dismiss someone's facts. Jabba's facts have each been demonstrated to be false. He has demonstrated an inability to deal with the most basic aspects of C14 dating, yet we are expected to take his word for it that the dating is wrong. He has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the methods involved in invisible patches, yet demands we accept that the samples taken from the shroud just happened to be from such a patch. And so on.

Quote:

And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here!

There is no controversy. There are a small handful of people willfully ignoring the data, often lying in their attempts to not see it (Jabba has been caught in numerous lies, which are documented in this thread--it's not a personal attack, merely a statement of fact). The rest of us, the RCC, and all of the scientific community interested in these subjects, are all in agreement: the shroud is a Medieval fake. This is as much a controversy as the evolution/Creationism debate.

Quote:

1) Straw man arguments: don’t waste time on claims of resurrection energy or cosmic forces etc., because the shroud sites don’t rely on those. If you want to win an argument you must engage your opponent’s BEST evidence.

May want to follow your own advice there, buddy. Explain how much contamination must be present on a 1st century cloth to make it yield a C14 date of the 14th century, or we're done here.

Quote:

2) Moving the goal line:

The goal line has remained rock-solid. Explain how much contamination must be present on a 1st century cloth to make it yield a C14 date of the 14th century, or we're done here.

Quote:

3) Relying on discredited science yourself:

Not an issue, because no one has discredited the C14 dating. Explain how much contamination must be present on a 1st century cloth to make it yield a C14 date of the 14th century, or we're done here.

Quote:

4) Selective credibility.

I at least have made my selection criteria crystal clear: Explain how much contamination must be present on a 1st century cloth to make it yield a C14 date of the 14th century, or we're done here.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

.... I haven't been able to find -- re the carbon dating --what I was expecting to find .... Not to worry -- I still have some excuses up my sleeve.

Your posts in this thread have become completely absurd.

Nobody here, or anywhere else on planet earth, wants to wait while you try to "find excuses up your sleeve".

We are not interested in the dishonesty of "excuses" or attempted frauds hidden "up your sleeve".

Nor are you being invited to spend an indefinite time waiting to see if a genuine paper ever does turn up disputing the C14. You were being asked if you actually have any such paper ... you are not being invited to delay this thread potentially for ever whilst waiting to see if anything ever turns up!

As for your colleague Randomity suddenly appearing and attempting to re-run all the same old shroud nonsense all over again for another 45 pages, I'm afraid that is just not going to happen.

Unless and until a valid genuine independent scientific paper ever appears disputing the C14, then it remain the case that the scientific evidence shows that the shroud almost certainly dates from 13th-14th century. Amen!

[pakeha]

While we're waiting for our two friends to come up a rebuttal to the carbon 14 dating of the TS, and before I start in on posting up the photos of the Basilica of the Holy Blood, I thought this might provide some amusement.


And nary a protest about the carbon 14 dating in the article!
Not one!

And the best part is that the dating was done at Oxford's labs.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud, because they realize it’s a different kind of case.

Why should we be frightened? The shroud is an interesting historical artefact. It would be even more interesting if it could be shown to originate from the first century, but unfortunately it can't.

What should we fear?

Quote:

It’s a well-documented artifact that has been extensively studied, photographed down to the microscopic level, and generally discussed to death for decades. And it still is provoking many pages of controversy here! If it were really debunked like Piltdown man or the Cardiff giant, there would not be much left to discuss about it, would there?

There isn't much to discuss (pending new data), but ... it's popular passtimes here, both befending untenable positions, and attacking them.

Quote:

I’m not here to present any evidence in favor of the shroud: I don’t need to.

And, of course, also a little bit because you can't, right?

Quote:

There are websites full of the data that anyone can find. If the skeptics here are really so sure it has been debunked, they need to leave the security of their friendly fellows here and engage the arguments presented on the pro-shroud websites.

Which we did.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

How did the accurate perspective information get onto the cloth? People will speculate endlessly about how the image may have been formed. Duplicating it in ALL its significant qualities will be the only real accomplishment. And so far that has not been done.

How do YOU claim it got there?

Quote:

Science is seldom unanimous in agreement, so is there any amount of scientific documentation that will convince you there are unexplained properties to the shroud? I doubt it.

Of course there are unexplained properties. Heck, the thing is 800 years old! And the access to scientific scrutiny has been and still is limited. How would you suggest we got to learn all about it?

Quote:

Sites like shroud.com or shroud2000.com at least are making an effort to address specific scientific claims. This forum would do well to do the same.

Have they addressed the C14 dating?

Hans

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Randomity99

But I wonder if some of the self-proclaimed skeptics here are a bit frightened by the shroud,

No. Why would I be frightened by a fake shroud? And who else would proclaim me a skeptic?

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No. Why would I be frightened by a fake shroud? And who else would proclaim me a skeptic?

What if it were dark and someone wore it over their head and pretended to be a ghost?

Pretty scary, I'm sure you'll agree.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi

What if it were dark and someone wore it over their head and pretended to be a ghost?

Pretty scary, I'm sure you'll agree.

Yes, the image of that guy who had forgotten to shave that morning would be scary.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Why should we be frightened?

Here's what people like Jabba and Randomity99 don't get: as far as archaeology is concerned, the shroud is STILL A RELIC. It's still even a USEFUL one!

A useful relic tells us about the people that made it, and the time and place it was made. For example, if we find an obsidian flake in an area completely lacking any other obsidian, that can tell us about travel or trade patterns. If the shroud is what all the evidence points to it being--a Medieval fake created with no small amount of skill--that tells us a great deal about the Middle Ages. We already knew that the fake relic industry was booming (there were enough "nails from the True Cross" to nail a whole village on crosses, and enough "splinters of the True Cross" to supply the wood, not to mention the breast milk from the Virgin); however, most of it was easily crafted. It would have been trivial to find old wood or nails--the Medieval society was built on the ruins (sometimes quite literally) of the previous society, and people didn't respect archaeological finds the way they do now. The shroud represents something all together different: a forgery with a high degree of skill, and a great deal of forethought. This isn't someone finding scraps of wood or ancient nails and selling them to gullible tourists. This is a sophisticated work that required resources (for example, literacy).

Monks weren't immune to the call for relics, and were often guilty of fabrication themselves. They also were relatively wealthy--many wealthy enough to raise armies (it was required for some monasteries), some WERE armies (the Teutonic Order, the Templars, the Hospitalers, and others), and some wealthy enough to fight the bishops and even Rome. And we know that the monks were often....less than respectful. Reading through some manuscripts can quickly turn into a game of "find all the butts", for example. This leads to an interesting potential explanation. After all, the group that found the burial shroud of God would have a great deal of power and leverage!

The first step to solving this mystery, of course, is convincing people to let us EXAMINE this mystery. People who irrationally reject the facts of the case (and if you don't understand C14 dating well enough to say how much contamination is necessary to make a 1st century cloth appear to be from the 14th century, you don't understand C14 dating well enough to make a rational evaluation of any data pertaining to it) are merely standing in the way of getting a deeper understanding of what this cloth means for human history and Western society.

We're not afraid of the shroud. We merely want to know what the devil it actually IS, and the god-botherers won't let us! This isn't fear, it's frustration.

Originally Posted by IanS

You were being asked if you actually have any such paper

You're more generous than I am. I'm asking if Jabba would even UNDERSTAND such a paper. Thus far he's utterly failed to demonstrate even a basic knowledge of isotopic chemistry, radiometric dating, or even basic algebra. Seriously, Jabba, the necessary equations are easily found on the web and amount to a math problem a high school kid can do. I know this, because that's when I did them (not necessarily these exact dates, but using the equations to determine contamination). The middle-schoolers my wife taught did these equations. Surly someone who's spent 20 years researching the shroud of Turin has done the basic math to know what it is he's looking for!!

[tsig]

I just read a book about the shroud, the author thinks that not only is the shroud real but that the Resurrection never happened and the shroud is what the apostles and others saw and that gave rise to the stories about the risen Christ. About 250 AD the shroud was sent into hiding in Constantinople where it was folded into the Mandylion and displayed. It stayed there til the fall of C. then a french knight took it back to France.

His proof for all this, a feeling of transcendence he had when looking at the shroud during a public display.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sign-Shrou.../dp/0525953655

[Jabba]

- OK. So here’s my story, and I’m st-st-stickin to it…
- Well, not necessarily.

- First, I’m forced to admit that I was wrong about the number of peer-reviewed papers regarding the validity of the dating… There are a lot of papers on the invalidity side -- but so far, I can find only two that have been peer-reviewed,
- Also, so far at least, I’ve found 2 peer-reviewed papers for the validity side – one, the original article in Nature; and two, FREER-WATERS, Rachel A. - JULL, A. J. Timothy – Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon Vol 52, No.4, p. 1521-1527, December 2010.
- As far as I can tell, the invalidity side also has only two – one, the Rogers article in Thermochimica Acta; and two, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. (Here, I’ve temporarily lost the citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which this paper was very recently (last month?) published, but I’m pretty sure that the journal was Statistics. Note that this paper had not been peer-reviewed when I was going around claiming that the invalidity argument had more PR articles than the one PR article (the original) claiming validity… Mea culpa…)

- I’m running into a lot more non-PR articles claiming invalidity, but I’ll skip most of them for now, ‘suspecting’ that you won’t be impressed. Here are 3:
http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf - Marino & Prior, 2008
http://shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf - Marino & Prior,
http://shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf - Jackson’s proposal

- In this last article, Jackson offers another possible reason why the dating would be skewed. As far as I can tell, the skewing that Jackson suggests could be added to the skewing that the Garza-Valdez findings suggest, and make up for what the Garza-Valdez skewing lacks – got that?…
- Anyway, the Jacksons are still working on the research. We’ll see.

- So for now, in regard to peer-reviewed articles re the carbon dating, I seem to have run into a dead end…

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi

What if it were dark and someone wore it over their head and pretended to be a ghost?

Pretty scary, I'm sure you'll agree.

.
They're called "hoodies" nowadays, and subject to termination with extreme prejudice!

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So for now, in regard to peer-reviewed articles re the carbon dating, I seem to have run into a dead end…

- I'll be back.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Please present the amount of contamination necessary to do this. The math is simple; just algebra.

As your post does not address this, your post is mere waffling.

It's also flagrant lies. Here's a fun link to just one of the many articles discussing the validity of radiometric dating. While these may not specifically say "C14 dating of the Shroud of Turin" in the title or abstract, any researcher worth his microscope would realize that limiting one's search in such a manner is just about the dumbest thing you can do.

Furthermore, it's not the NUMBER of papers, but the QUALITY of the papers that's important. I've explained this to you before, though you obviously would prefer it if we all ignored that fact. One peer reviewed paper is sufficient to demolish the ridiculous notion that the shroud is authentic, if it is of sufficient quality. Five million peer reviewed papers may, if they are of insufficient quality. And if one author is particularly prolific (as a brief Google Scholar search shows one particular nutjob to be), the number of articles becomes completely irrelevant.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...

- First, I’m forced to admit that I was wrong about the number of peer-reviewed papers regarding the validity of the dating… There are a lot of papers on the invalidity side -- but so far, I can find only two that have been peer-reviewed,
- Also, so far at least, I’ve found 2 peer-reviewed papers for the validity side – one, the original article in Nature; and two, FREER-WATERS, Rachel A. - JULL, A. J. Timothy – Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon Vol 52, No.4, p. 1521-1527, December 2010.
- As far as I can tell, the invalidity side also has only two – one, the Rogers article in Thermochimica Acta; and two, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. (Here, I’ve temporarily lost the citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which this paper was very recently (last month?) published, but I’m pretty sure that the journal was Statistics.

... Jackson offers another possible reason why the dating would be skewed. As far as I can tell, the skewing that Jackson suggests could be added to the skewing that the Garza-Valdez findings suggest, and make up for what the Garza-Valdez skewing lacks – got that?…
- Anyway, the Jacksons are still working on the research. We’ll see.

- So for now, in regard to peer-reviewed articles re the carbon dating, I seem to have run into a dead end…

Oh, Jabba.
Was this really the best you could do?
Jackson's proposal was taken up by Oxford this year and the results were published this Spring.
I'll bet you already know what those results were, because I posted a link to them in this very thread.

Quote:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. (Here, I’ve temporarily lost the citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which this paper was very recently (last month?) published, but I’m pretty sure that the journal was Statistics.

It was 'published' in May of 2010.
It says so at the beginning of the paper, which was presented here:
http://meetings.sis-statistica.org/i...is2010/sis2010

Jabba, it took me 2 minutes to find that source.
What are we supposed to think of someone who wants to rewrite a wikipedia entry who can't take the trouble to do a 2 minute google search on the source of his own links?
Are you sure the TS is is a subject that really interests you?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I’m running into a lot more non-PR articles claiming invalidity, but I’ll skip most of them for now, ‘suspecting’ that you won’t be impressed. Here are 3:
http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf - Marino & Prior, 2008
http://shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf - Marino & Prior,
http://shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf - Jackson’s proposal

- In this last article, Jackson offers another possible reason why the dating would be skewed. As far as I can tell, the skewing that Jackson suggests could be added to the skewing that the Garza-Valdez findings suggest, and make up for what the Garza-Valdez skewing lacks – got that?…
- Anyway, the Jacksons are still working on the research. We’ll see.

Why would you expect people wouldn't be impressed by these articles? I mean, the Jackson proposal is for a possible mechanism that they haven't demonstrated exists, which would require exact numbers that they haven't shown, and testing that they say will take them many months. Oh, and this was four years ago. I mean, that's practically a certainty!

ETA - I've just read Pakeha's link to the results. Damn, I was so sure that paper was going to work in your favour.

[pakeha]

Here's the post which links to the Oxford testing of the Jackson hypothesis/proposal
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1178

[Jabba]

Me: Quote:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. (Here, I’ve temporarily lost the citation for the peer-reviewed journal in which this paper was very recently (last month?) published, but I’m pretty sure that the journal was Statistics.

Originally Posted by pakeha

...It was 'published' in May of 2010.
It says so at the beginning of the paper, which was presented here:
http://meetings.sis-statistica.org/i...is2010/sis2010...

Pakeha,
- I wasn't able to find such a paper at that site...
--- Jabba