Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- You were next on my list. Thanks for trying to avoid snarky. See below.
- I'll try to stick to my preferred response plan, and address one sub-issue at a time.
--- Jabba

Ooh, here we go.


Funny fonts and colours - check

Top posting - check

Bizarro World™ quoting - check


This'll end well.

[Aepervius]

Please correct your quote tag by adding /quote and quote before and after your text as necessary

Originally Posted by Jabba

I have meant to claim something close to your "Authentic Reason." I think that there is evidence that the C14 tests were done incorrectly or invalidly, and that contamination may have been at least one of the causes for the problem -- though, at first glance, that wouldn't seem to account for the size of the variance, even with hundreds of instances of rough handling of that corner over the centuries. I don't expect the Jacksons to come up with something that would provide enough additional variance, but they might.
- But also, I still consider other possible explanations, such as: repair, statistical problems or deliberate tampering...
- I "expect" there to be some sort of problem with the dating because I believe that there is so much evidence of a much earlier date.

What is striking is that 1) you haven't presented any valid evidence whatsoever of your claim that there is problem with the 14C analysis. just that you think there is. 2) even more striking you do not consider at all the hypothesis that you are wrong, and the 14C analysis is valid. You come off as starting from your expectation (shroud authentic) then reason away there must be problem with the 14C. IF you had STARTED from the evidence of 14C analysis being wrong and concluded the shroud is authentic, it would be REALLY EASY for you to provide such evidence, as they would be the starting point of your hypotheses. But it is not the case we are now page 50 and no single evidence the 14C analysis have problem.

it is quite evidence that you ARE starting from the "shroud is authentic" and then try to find from THIS expectation evidence, and you cast shadow without real ground on valid evidence which goes against your hypothesis (a grand name for your belief).

I am sorry, but this is not how reality works. But this is certainly how belief in UFO/Bigfoot/Turin's shroud/Ancient Alien seems to work, we have many example of such logic of starting from the hypotheses and perverting evidence to agree with the claim.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos...ToothFairy.jpg

Akhenaten,
- I assume that you were implying that those hits were referring to a controversy over whether or not the tooth fairy is real -- that is not the case. They seem to be referring to all sorts of links that contain those words, or similar words, but that have nothing to do with the above "controversy." Probably the prevalent referral is to links about whether or not to tell your kids that there is a tooth fairy, or when to tell your kids that there isn't a tooth fairy.
- Show us just one link where an adult is claiming that there is a tooth fairy.
- Whereas, under "Shroud of Turin controversy," every hit that I examined (just the first two pages of the Google list) referred to links to serious discussion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
--- Jabba

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- If you Google "Shroud of Turin controversy" you get about 274,000 hits. A lot of people think there is such a controversy. Walter McCrone called it a controversy. Joe Nickell calls it a controversy. Richard Dawkins also calls it a controversy.
--- Jabba

Lots of believers need there to be a controversy, otherwise they'd have to accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You were next on my list. Thanks for trying to avoid snarky. See below.
- I'll try to stick to my preferred response plan, and address one sub-issue at a time.
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by Garrette
I'm going to try my best at summarizing your position; please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also going to try my best not to be snarky, so please take this seriously.

Fraud Reason: You acknowledge that there is scientific evidence that the shroud is from the 14th century. Further, you acknowledge that the scientific evidence is valid and has not been shown to be flawed.

However:

Authentic Reason: You feel there may be evidence that the C14 tests were done incorrectly or invalidly, i.e., there may have been sufficient contamination to throw off the results by 1300 years...
- I'm not sure of what you mean by this dichotomy.
- I haven't claimed (or at least haven't meant to claim) your "Fraud Reason."
- I have meant to claim something close to your "Authentic Reason." I think that there is evidence that the C14 tests were done incorrectly or invalidly, and that contamination may have been at least one of the causes for the problem -- though, at first glance, that wouldn't seem to account for the size of the variance, even with hundreds of instances of rough handling of that corner over the centuries. I don't expect the Jacksons to come up with something that would provide enough additional variance, but they might.
- But also, I still consider other possible explanations, such as: repair, statistical problems or deliberate tampering...
- I "expect" there to be some sort of problem with the dating because I believe that there is so much evidence of a much earlier date.
- I'll try to begin presenting that other evidence within the next day or so.

My Comments: By your own link, the evidence of such contamination is non-existent. After all these many years of attempting to discredit the C14 dating, the best the pro-Shroud supporters have come up with is a promise of further research because they have an idea that possibly they may have an idea.

For now I'm ignoring other things like the bishop's (?) letter from the 14th century stating the shroud is a fraud and the other papers/videos you've linked discussing quantum stuff, blood, etc.

Am I correct in my summation of your position on the C14?

If there is a dichotomy it is because you have given the impression that on the one hand you acknowledge the C14 dating but on the other think there are reasons it must be wrong.

But since you say that is not your position, I will try again:

Your position is this:
The C14 dating is wrong.
You admit that no one has shown the C14 dating to be wrong but you conclude that it must be wrong because:

1. Some people have talked about the possibility of contamination without actually showing any contamination or any of the math involved in determining the amount of contamination
2. You think that even if it was done scientifically correctly it analyzed an unrepresentative portion of the shroud even though there is no legitimate evidence presented by anyone that this is the case. One person (Rogers) has written a peer-reviewed paper on it, but his methodology has been thoroughly discredited (test tube science in the kitchen) as have his claims of obtaining the sample cloth (no provenance).

Tell me if I am wrong so far. Be specific, please.

Assuming that I am correct (and I really don’t see how I can be, though I am willing to be shown), then here is my own summary of your position, speaking as if I am you:


There are lots of claims on the authenticity side, but none of them withstand scrutiny and only one has even the pretense of a claim to scientific validity and that one has been found sorely lacking. There are few claims on the fraud side but they are buttressed with science that has not been shown to be lacking. I choose to believe the volumes of unfounded claims instead of the slim novel of valid science.

And despite how it must come across when reading it, I am not intending to be snarky with my summary. I am simply intending to point out clearly what you have done.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Whereas, under "Shroud of Turin controversy," every hit that I examined (just the first two pages of the Google list) referred to links to serious discussion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
--- Jabba

What you are describing as "serious discussion" is nothing more than your fellow religious shroud believers still trying to argue that the C14 is wrong. Despite the fact that they have no genuine scientific argument against the C14 (which is precisely why you have been unable to find even one genuine independent science paper disputing the C14 ... and we have been all over that issue repeatedly for more than 40 pages now! ).

Really the word "controversy" is neither here nor there (irrelevant), and I don't really want to argue further with Davefoc about it's use. But the plain fact is that the C14 results are most definitely not controversial and not in any dispute within relevant qualified science.

What is being called a "controversy", is only the endless pursuit of Christian fanatics such as yourself who cannot accept the genuine independent and properly determined results of the C14 testing.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

You don't have a spare do you? I dropped mine in a DOC thread and a fallaciosaurus ate it.

Here you go, it's mighty handy when you get stuck in a story line and need a quick solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So...driver2010.jpg


ETA: must use thesaurus app.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Akhenaten,
- I assume that you were implying that those hits were referring to a controversy over whether or not the tooth fairy is real -- that is not the case.

<blather>

Never mind what you think I might be implying, Jabba - let me tell you straight out what the point is that I was making.

Argumentum ad Googlum is too laughable even to be considered as worthy of being referred to as a fallacy.

Is that a bit clearer?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Show us just one link where an adult is claiming that there is a tooth fairy.

I think you'll find that the idea of the tooth fairy being real is a claim often made by adults. This is exactly the same as shroudies wanting the shroud to be real because otherwise they have nothing to hang their belief on.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Akhenaten,
- I assume that you were implying that those hits were referring to a controversy over whether or not the tooth fairy is real -- that is not the case. They seem to be referring to all sorts of links that contain those words, or similar words, but that have nothing to do with the above "controversy." Probably the prevalent referral is to links about whether or not to tell your kids that there is a tooth fairy, or when to tell your kids that there isn't a tooth fairy.
- Show us just one link where an adult is claiming that there is a tooth fairy.
- Whereas, under "Shroud of Turin controversy," every hit that I examined (just the first two pages of the Google list) referred to links to serious discussion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
--- Jabba

Certainly until Victorian and Edwardian times (eg circa 1800's -1920) many people all over the world did believe that fairies were real. Here are the first two Wiki links I found within seconds (I expect the internet has plenty more stuff about belief in Fairies).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy


In many cases people believed fairies to be quite dangerous and spiteful creatures which you could do you harm.

Why that belief in fairies has died away during the 20th and 21st centuries I’m not sure. But presumably it’s partly because more people are now aware of the scientific evidence that tiny human-like creatures of this type are so unlikely as to be impossible and merely mythical, and partly because unlike your Shroud belief and the beliefs of YC-Creationists etc., the belief in fairies is not part of a much wider belief in religious Gods, miracles and holy books etc., ie belief in fairies does not have that vast religious structure supporting it’s claims.

Though, in Ireland afaik, there are still quite a few people who continue to believe Leprechauns are real (ie a type of Irish fairy) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun


So until perhaps 70 years ago I expect many people would have described belief in fairies as a “controversy”.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Garrette

If there is a dichotomy it is because you have given the impression that on the one hand you acknowledge the C14 dating but on the other think there are reasons it must be wrong.

But since you say that is not your position, I will try again:

Your position is this:
The C14 dating is wrong.

Garrette,
- I think that the C14 dating is wrong.
- I'll try to be right back.
--- Jabba

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- I think that the C14 dating is wrong.
- I'll try to be right back.
--- Jabba

You want the dating to be wrong. That's it. You just want it to be wrong.
Why will you be right back? To repeat that you want the dating to be wrong?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Garrette

...You admit that no one has shown the C14 dating to be wrong but you conclude that it must be wrong because:

1. Some people have talked about the possibility of contamination without actually showing any contamination or any of the math involved in determining the amount of contamination

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- I think that the C14 dating is wrong.
- I'll try to be right back.
--- Jabba

Thank you, but I get that.

My point is about what causes you to think it is wrong. The reason clearly isn't that it has been shown to be wrong; all such claims have led nowhere and been shown to be flawed. That leaves you thinking it is wrong based on unsubstantiated claims.

So I'll try a third time: You think the C14 dating is wrong because you choose to believe the volumes of flawed claims over the slim novel of valid science.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

You have been saying that you think the dating is wrong for a considerable time now.
Now it's your wife's fault that you will not say why you think the dating wrong.
How about you just go away, figure out why you think it wrong, and don't come back until then.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

What a *********** joke.

You have nothing, Jabba. Why don't you just admit it? Do you know how tiresome this is?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

On the one hand I look forward to the reasons. On the other hand I suspect it will be a rehash of unsubstantiated claims which do not address the science of the C14 dating but instead make claims about how the shroud must be from the 1st century and how the tested piece wasn't representative. If that is the case, then my first take on your position was accurate. If it is not the case, then I will be happy to be wrong.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

Be careful the dog doesn't eat your list of reasons while you are busy with your wife. You would have to start your decades of research on the Shroud all over again should that happen.

[Marduk]

Just for once wouldn't it be great if the catholics stopped lying about it
everyone knows they are, do they think if they carry on we'll forget or something ?

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Just for once wouldn't it be great if the catholics stopped lying about it
everyone knows they are, do they think if they carry on we'll forget or something ?

Is belief in the authenticity in particular a Catholic thing? I thought the official church position was neutral on the subject, but the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states that it is not the burial shroud of Jesus:

Quote:

An animated controversy followed and it must be admitted that though the immense preponderance of opinion among learned Catholics (see the statement by P.M. Baumgarten in the "Historiches Jahrbuch", 1903, pp. 319-43) was adverse to the authenticity of the relic, still the violence of many of its assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestion made of blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed were quite without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative" impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This Shroud like the others [referring to other shrouds that were touted to be the shroud of Jesus) was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter sequence:

Dic nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article also included an argument against authenticity that I hadn't read before or at least I had forgotten about it:

Quote:

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Akhenaten,
- I assume that you were implying that those hits were referring to a controversy over whether or not the tooth fairy is real -- that is not the case. They seem to be referring to all sorts of links that contain those words, or similar words, but that have nothing to do with the above "controversy." Probably the prevalent referral is to links about whether or not to tell your kids that there is a tooth fairy, or when to tell your kids that there isn't a tooth fairy.

And you entirely missed the point. The tooth fairy controversy gets more hits. Did you check the TS controversy in likewise manner? No.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Show us just one link where an adult is claiming that there is a tooth fairy.

I do, with my kids. Most parents do, with their kids. Why would you need a link for that?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Whereas, under "Shroud of Turin controversy," every hit that I examined (just the first two pages of the Google list) referred to links to serious discussion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
--- Jabba

No, you do not examine anything. You simply reject anything you don't like, and accept anything you do. Confirmation bias in action.

Originally Posted by Marduk

I think you'll find that the idea of the tooth fairy being real is a claim often made by adults. This is exactly the same as shroudies wanting the shroud to be real because otherwise they have nothing to hang their belief on.

The TF has more positive evidence to be shown. After all, there is cash under the pillow.

Originally Posted by IanS

<snip for brevity>
Though, in Ireland afaik, there are still quite a few people who continue to believe Leprechauns are real (ie a type of Irish fairy) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun


So until perhaps 70 years ago I expect many people would have described belief in fairies as a “controversy”.

You will have a hard time finding any pogues who believe that.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- I think that the C14 dating is wrong.
- I'll try to be right back.
--- Jabba

Months have passed, and you "will be right back" has worn out as an excuse.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Garrette,
- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow...

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, it's always tomorrow. Tomorrow is another day"

Originally Posted by Jabba

My wife just walked in.
--- Jabba

<insert whipcrack noise here> Why is that in any way relevant? I do not care if the pope walked in.

Originally Posted by Giordano

Be careful the dog doesn't eat your list of reasons while you are busy with your wife. You would have to start your decades of research on the Shroud all over again should that happen.

Dog ate my homework. Oldest in the book.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by IanS

...
But there is no "controversy" about the C14 within the scientific community. And that's where we have look, ie within that relevant branch of the scientific research community, because we are talking about a very specifically scientific determination.

The C14 results aren’t controversial. They are universally accepted. The only people disputing it are religious fanatics who are also disputing everything else that they think undermines their belief in God. ...

A very good point about the 'controversy', IanS.
However, the TS supporters are an oddity even among Christians. After all, the Vatican accepts the TS is a 14th century artefact.
I've given the TS phenomena some thought, especially after my experience in Bruges at the Holy Blood Basilica and come to the conclusion that the TS attracts the same sort of people who would be potential believers in crop circles and chem trails.

Originally Posted by Jabba

[b][color="RoyalBlue"]...
- I have meant to claim something close to your "Authentic Reason." I think that there is evidence that the C14 tests were done incorrectly or invalidly, and that contamination may have been at least one of the causes for the problem -

Jabba, you do understand your sources for that claim have been refuted again and again here and in other forums? Do you have something new to present us?

Originally Posted by Jabba

[b][color="RoyalBlue"]- But also, I still consider other possible explanations, such as: repair, statistical problems or deliberate tampering...

Repair?
That possibility was discarted long ago, by the person entrusted to do the recent restoration of the TS.

Statistical problems?
Could you explain just what you mean there?

Deliberate tampering?
Are you saying there is a conspiracy, countenanced by the Vatican, to deliberately give a false date to the TS?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I "expect" there to be some sort of problem with the dating because I believe that there is so much evidence of a much earlier date. ...

Could you, once and for all, tell us what that evidence is, please?

Originally Posted by Marduk

I think you'll find that the idea of the tooth fairy being real is a claim often made by adults. This is exactly the same as shroudies wanting the shroud to be real because otherwise they have nothing to hang their belief on.

Sorry to contradict, Marduk, but they'll always have the Relic of the Holy Blood in Bruges. I've been there. Attended the Mass. Attended the exhibition of the Relic. Seen the faces of the devout.
The TS is a different kettle of fish all together, one the Church rejects as spurious and I think has more in common with the 'Ancient Aliens' phenomena than faith.

Faith was what I saw in Bruges, in the Holy Blood Basilica.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- There are several reasons why I think that the dating is wrong...
- I'll have to get back to you with those reasons tomorrow... My wife just walked in.

No worries, Jabba. Family and real life obligations have to have priority over the discusssion of an artefact. We're all of us looking forward to understanding your reasons.

Originally Posted by davefoc

Is belief in the authenticity in particular a Catholic thing? I thought the official church position was neutral on the subject, but the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states that it is not the burial shroud of Jesus ...

The TS attracts many people for many reasons. I'm willing to bet there's a doctorate just waiting to be written on the subject.

[Pacal]

I don't think anyone as given in full the 14th century letter that state the shroud is a fake. So here it is.

The letter goes as follows.


[Letter to Pope Clement VII, 1389.]

This post cut-and-pasted a large amount of material from somewhere else, which is a violation of rule 4. I've searched a site that has the text and you can go there to read the whole thing. I've edited this to just the part Pacal highlighted.

Posted By:Tricky

The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory. Then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
***
Interesting isn't it. I've emphasized one section.

[Akhenaten]

Ummm . . .

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos...ToothFairy.jpg

Game, set and match.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by IanS

What is being called a "controversy", is only the endless pursuit of Christian fanatics such as yourself who cannot accept the genuine independent and properly determined results of the C14 testing.

And one has to wonder why. It's not like their faith hangs on the authenticity of a piece of cloth.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And one has to wonder why. It's not like their faith hangs on the authenticity of a piece of cloth.

You might say it hangs by a thread.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Ummm . . .

Looks like the shroud is still doing what it was made to do, shearing the sheep. The artist would be proud.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by tsig

You might say it hangs by a thread.

Heh. I was in stitches when I read that.

[Marduk]

ok, thats enough comedy, wrap it up now

[Jabba]

- In general, I think that the carbon dating was wrong because
1. There appear to be significant problems with the dating PROCESS before, within and after the actual testing was performed.
2. OTHER scientific and historical evidence dispute the results.
3. Scientific tests support a basic chemical difference between the greater Shroud and the small corner containing the area examined by Raes and the adjoining area that was carbon dated.
- I think there’s another general reason, but I can’t remember it now…

- In regard to #1, I’ve provided the basics of my reasoning back in 896. I have more to say about that issue, but will put it aside for the moment.
- #2, should be split in two:
2.1. The other evidence that supports a 14th century creation, is quite suspect.
2.2. Other evidence (yet) supports a much earlier date.

- #3 (the claimed anomalous nature of the corner tested) is where I will begin with specifics.
- First off, per usual, this is going to take longer than expected – there’s a lot of evidence and logic to present and examine…
- I will endeavor to ‘abstract’ the summary of evidence and logic presented by Marino and Pryor in two separate papers:
- Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and ADDENDUM TO Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous
Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf).
- I don’t think that I had previously referred to the first paper, but I HAD previously referred to the second.
- You guys unanimously tossed out that first paper as rubbish -- claiming that all the claims within that paper had been convincingly refuted. But then, as far as I can remember, you never did address any of the specific claims, or present any actual refutations. As you know, my memory isn’t so good these days, so tell me if I’m wrong…

- Anyway, I will now enter the lions’ den and see if I can do the ‘abstracting’ that I’ve proposed. The first paper makes 77 claims altogether, while the second makes only 26.

Entry: #1
Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my
examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in
the historical records (the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess
Clotilde).‖
Comments: This indicates that the Shroud could have received undocumented repairs in its
history. The report describes various documented repairs in the C-14 sample area, including a
repair by the Poor Clare Nuns in 1973 after the Raes sample extraction (piece extracted by
Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes). These repairs may or may not have appeared in part or in
whole in the adjacent sample used for the C-14 test in 1988. The person responsible for
extracting this sample, Italian scientist Giovanni Riggi, never mentions these threads as
specifically being eliminated from the sample. However, a drawing by Riggi (found in Bonnet-
Eymard, Bruno, ―The Carbon 14 Dating,‖ Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,
April 1991, No.238, pg. 2), and a statement by Riggi demonstrate some recognition that darning
may have overlapped part of the sample and that he attempted to cut a portion of the threads out.
(See entry number 8 in this section.)

Entry: #2
Textile expert Gilbert Raes of Belgium, who extracted a sample in 1973 for analysis,
wrote in his report that he found cotton. Raes also noted, ―The thread used for sewing the two
pieces [designated ―Piece 1‖ and ―Piece 2‖] together is…twisted in an S-direction, whereas the
individual threads are twisted in a Z-direction.
Comments: The Raes sample is highly significant due to its thorough examination and adjacent
location to the C-14 sample area. Given the stark differences between yarns found in the Raes‘
Pieces 1 and 2, combined with the existence of the sewing thread, which connected the two
disparate materials, Benford and Marino hypothesize that Piece 2 was the original Shroud
material/seam and Piece 1 was a cotton-containing patch made to resemble the original Shroud
cloth. (See: ―Surface Chemical Analysis of the Shroud of Turin Identifies Discrepancies in
Radiocarbon Dating Region‖ by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, presented at the ―The
Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multi-Faceted Enigma‖ conference in Columbus, Ohio on
August 14-17th 2008, which will be accessible online at www.ohioshroudconference.com by
January 1, 2009). Each piece exhibits different characteristics, such as cotton content, lignin
content at the growth nodes, and thread size, suggesting two different origins of the yarns. The
continuous, fully-observable sewing thread represents a significant change of technique, and
suggests this section of thread, which incorporated the Raes sample and C-14 sample areas, was
applied from the top instead of the reverse of the cloth. This further implies the two sections of
sewing threads (C-14 region versus main Shroud) were applied at different times and by different
artisans with the main Shroud stitching possibly from the same time period as a cloth from
Masada in Israel, dated to BC 40 to AD 73 [M. Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild, Sindon N.S. Quad. 16
(Dec 2001., pg. 60)]. Raes himself would not commit in his report to a specific time period for
the origin of the cloth. Regarding the S-direction versus the Z-direction, Raes is referring to the
connection between the fabric and the seam; the two different twists indicate the existence of two
different kinds of cloth. (See entry number 13 in this section.)

- I’ll be placing the rest of my efforts on http://shrouddebates.com/, rather than clog up this thread. For now, more specifically, I’ll place them at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=158, “Ongoing Debate.” I’ll plan on giving them a separate page in the future…
- Also, I’ll try to figure out a better way to “abstract” – I’ll just pick out my favorites if I can’t figure out a better way to express them all…

- Whatever, perhaps some of you could pretend that you’re speaking to a neutral audience and formulate your arguments accordingly. I’m sorry to put you on the spot, Davefoc, but your approach has been a good example of the kind of debate I’m asking for.

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

<snip>

As you know, my memory isn’t so good these days, so tell me if I’m wrong…

<snip>

As near as I can tell, you still have quite a ways to go before you get to 'wrong'.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

Wow, this aspect provides a HUGE problem for the "the shroud can't be replicated by modern methods" claim. Because it means that it is not necessary to replicate what the shroud looks like now, and would be necessary to replicate what it looked like 600 years ago and let it age 600 years. But we don't know what it actually looked like 600 years ago, aside from vague descriptions.

So after 420 pages or whatever, we suddenly come upon two very damaging pieces of information in the course of a day.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

1. There appear to be significant problems with the dating PROCESS before, within and after the actual testing was performed.

Untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba

2. OTHER scientific and historical evidence dispute the results.

Untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba

3. Scientific tests support a basic chemical difference between the greater Shroud and the small corner containing the area examined by Raes and the adjoining area that was carbon dated.

Untrue.

<snippage of much recycled nonsense>

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In general, I think that the carbon dating was wrong because
1. There appear to be significant problems with the dating PROCESS before, within and after the actual testing was performed.
2. OTHER scientific and historical evidence dispute the results.
3. Scientific tests support a basic chemical difference between the greater Shroud and the small corner containing the area examined by Raes and the adjoining area that was carbon dated.
- I think there’s another general reason, but I can’t remember it now…

- In regard to #1, I’ve provided the basics of my reasoning back in 896. I have more to say about that issue, but will put it aside for the moment.
- #2, should be split in two:
2.1. The other evidence that supports a 14th century creation, is quite suspect.
2.2. Other evidence (yet) supports a much earlier date.

- #3 (the claimed anomalous nature of the corner tested) is where I will begin with specifics.
- First off, per usual, this is going to take longer than expected – there’s a lot of evidence and logic to present and examine…
- I will endeavor to ‘abstract’ the summary of evidence and logic presented by Marino and Pryor in two separate papers:
- Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and ADDENDUM TO Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous
Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf).
- I don’t think that I had previously referred to the first paper, but I HAD previously referred to the second.
- You guys unanimously tossed out that first paper as rubbish -- claiming that all the claims within that paper had been convincingly refuted. But then, as far as I can remember, you never did address any of the specific claims, or present any actual refutations. As you know, my memory isn’t so good these days, so tell me if I’m wrong…

- Anyway, I will now enter the lions’ den and see if I can do the ‘abstracting’ that I’ve proposed. The first paper makes 77 claims altogether, while the second makes only 26.

Entry: #1
Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my
examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in
the historical records (the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess
Clotilde).‖
Comments: This indicates that the Shroud could have received undocumented repairs in its
history. The report describes various documented repairs in the C-14 sample area, including a
repair by the Poor Clare Nuns in 1973 after the Raes sample extraction (piece extracted by
Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes). These repairs may or may not have appeared in part or in
whole in the adjacent sample used for the C-14 test in 1988. The person responsible for
extracting this sample, Italian scientist Giovanni Riggi, never mentions these threads as
specifically being eliminated from the sample. However, a drawing by Riggi (found in Bonnet-
Eymard, Bruno, ―The Carbon 14 Dating,‖ Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,
April 1991, No.238, pg. 2), and a statement by Riggi demonstrate some recognition that darning
may have overlapped part of the sample and that he attempted to cut a portion of the threads out.
(See entry number 8 in this section.)

Entry: #2
Textile expert Gilbert Raes of Belgium, who extracted a sample in 1973 for analysis,
wrote in his report that he found cotton. Raes also noted, ―The thread used for sewing the two
pieces [designated ―Piece 1‖ and ―Piece 2‖] together is…twisted in an S-direction, whereas the
individual threads are twisted in a Z-direction.
Comments: The Raes sample is highly significant due to its thorough examination and adjacent
location to the C-14 sample area. Given the stark differences between yarns found in the Raes‘
Pieces 1 and 2, combined with the existence of the sewing thread, which connected the two
disparate materials, Benford and Marino hypothesize that Piece 2 was the original Shroud
material/seam and Piece 1 was a cotton-containing patch made to resemble the original Shroud
cloth. (See: ―Surface Chemical Analysis of the Shroud of Turin Identifies Discrepancies in
Radiocarbon Dating Region‖ by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, presented at the ―The
Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multi-Faceted Enigma‖ conference in Columbus, Ohio on
August 14-17th 2008, which will be accessible online at www.ohioshroudconference.com by
January 1, 2009). Each piece exhibits different characteristics, such as cotton content, lignin
content at the growth nodes, and thread size, suggesting two different origins of the yarns. The
continuous, fully-observable sewing thread represents a significant change of technique, and
suggests this section of thread, which incorporated the Raes sample and C-14 sample areas, was
applied from the top instead of the reverse of the cloth. This further implies the two sections of
sewing threads (C-14 region versus main Shroud) were applied at different times and by different
artisans with the main Shroud stitching possibly from the same time period as a cloth from
Masada in Israel, dated to BC 40 to AD 73 [M. Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild, Sindon N.S. Quad. 16
(Dec 2001., pg. 60)]. Raes himself would not commit in his report to a specific time period for
the origin of the cloth. Regarding the S-direction versus the Z-direction, Raes is referring to the
connection between the fabric and the seam; the two different twists indicate the existence of two
different kinds of cloth. (See entry number 13 in this section.)

- I’ll be placing the rest of my efforts on http://shrouddebates.com/, rather than clog up this thread. For now, more specifically, I’ll place them at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=158, “Ongoing Debate.” I’ll plan on giving them a separate page in the future…
- Also, I’ll try to figure out a better way to “abstract” – I’ll just pick out my favorites if I can’t figure out a better way to express them all…

- Whatever, perhaps some of you could pretend that you’re speaking to a neutral audience and formulate your arguments accordingly. I’m sorry to put you on the spot, Davefoc, but your approach has been a good example of the kind of debate I’m asking for.

--- Jabba

1. Before I waste even more time reading posts like the above - is there anything new there that you haven't said before?

2. If any part of the above suggests that the C14 is wrong, then as before - please produce the independent peer-reviewed genuine science papers which say the C14 is wrong.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by IanS

1. Before I waste even more time reading posts like the above - is there anything new there that you haven't said before?

Not that I can see.

Originally Posted by IanS

2. If any part of the above suggests that the C14 is wrong, then as before - please produce the independent peer-reviewed genuine science papers which say the C14 is wrong.

[gambling_cruiser]

It seems Jabba has ignored the last 50 pages and is going to recycle all the nonsense ones more!

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

It seems Jabba has ignored the last 50 pages and is going to recycle all the nonsense ones more!

Don't forget to add that he's trying to drive more traffic to his website by once again making a page to mimic this thread.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In general, I think that the carbon dating was wrong because
1. There appear to be significant problems with the dating PROCESS before, within and after the actual testing was performed. ...

- In regard to #1, I’ve provided the basics of my reasoning back in 896. I have more to say about that issue, but will put it aside for the moment.

- You guys unanimously tossed out that first paper as rubbish -- claiming that all the claims within that paper had been convincingly refuted. But then, as far as I can remember, you never did address any of the specific claims, or present any actual refutations. As you know, my memory isn’t so good these days, so tell me if I’m wrong…

You're wrong, Jabba.
Go back and read the threads where those papers were discusssed.
I've posted up links to the refutations.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Entry: #1
Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote:...

Jabba.
You are aware the TS underwent extensive restoration in 2002.
You are aware the restorer found nil evidence to back up those claims you've outined here.
You know that.
Why even bother bringing this up again?

Originally Posted by Jabba

Entry: #2
Textile expert Gilbert Raes of Belgium, who extracted a sample in 1973 for analysis,
wrote in his report that he found cotton. ......
disparate materials, Benford and Marino hypothesize ...Each piece exhibits different characteristics, such as cotton content, lignin
content at the growth nodes, and thread size, suggesting two different origins of the yarns. T

Why do you bring up those same sources again?
All of them have been refuted and you know it.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I’ll be placing the rest of my efforts on xxxxxx, rather than clog up this thread. For now, more specifically, I’ll place them at xxxxx, “Ongoing Debate.” I’ll plan on giving them a separate page in the future…

Rather a transparently obvious attempt to divert traffic to your 'forum', Jabba.
Why not simply debate here, rather re-post material which has been refuted not only here, but on other forums?

I'd like to think you have something other than previously refuted sources upon which to base your claims.
You've been asked repeatedly to do something other than quote previously refuted sources.
And you know it.
Going back to square one with the same refuted material can be considered provocative by many posters here.
It could be construed as an attempt to promote your own site among other things.

Please stop re-quoting old and refuted material.
Please explain why you think the C14 dating is incorrect.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In general, I think that the carbon dating was wrong because...
2. OTHER scientific and historical evidence dispute the results.

- #2, should be split in two:
2.1. The other evidence that supports a 14th century creation, is quite suspect.
2.2. Other evidence (yet) supports a much earlier date.

-

I'm looking forward to seeing this other evidence and I'm hoping Jabba will be honest enough to post it here.
For those who haven't followed the testimonies of the TS restorer, Mechtild Flury-Lemberg, here's a quotation from Ladewig,

"


- it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed from the shroud for the first time in 500 years, the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and their own textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg examined the shroud in microscopic detail and stated that it was quite certain that there was definitely no patch or repair anywhere near the C14 sample site, and that Rogers was definitely wrong ever to suggest there was any such patch or repair.


Why do you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg have both repeatedly stated that fact?

Answer that please."
It's clear Jabba is simply avoiding uncomfortable questions and re-posting the same material again and again.

I'm very curious as to why he is doing this.