Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

Originally Posted by davefoc

It related only to the quality of the discussion in this thread about the authenticity of the shroud.

If your point is that was an off topic digression, then perhaps so. If you had a different point in mind then I have missed it and if so then my apologies.

But the question got me to thinking. Am I disgusted with some or all of the pro-authenticity advocacy people? I'm not sure. I tend to be more forgiving of what I think of as the true believer crowd. For one thing, I'd be in a pretty big state of continuous disgust given how much of the world believes in what looks like hokum to me. Am I disgusted by the scientists that have promoted what looks like complete crap to me for reasons that seem driven by some kind of self interest bias? Yeah, I suppose so, but it's not clear how to divide the pro-authenticity people between the cynics that pander to the credulous and the actual true believers for which even a scientific background has yielded low critical thinking capability.

Dave, I truly don't think you should take any of this to heart re. the "controversy".

All that was happening, was that some of us did not want to let Jabba & his fellow shroud fanatics, insist that the shroud is still a matter of any genuine "controversy", ie a great mystery, despite the C14 results. Or indeed to let him claim, as he does, that on top of all the original "controversy" we must now add even more "controversy" about the C14 results!

IOW - every time anyone shows that the shroud claims are likely to be wrong, shroud fanatics just claim that the shroud then becomes even more controversial! It's rather like the creationists and the Young-Earth believers etc., who, every time science plugs one gap in their God claims, they then claim there are now two gaps! ... because they now say we also need to explain what they claim is a new mystery about another “controversial” result of science!

But the "controversy" thing was never more than just a few of us not wanting to let Jabba get away with characterising the C14 result as controversial. Because the only thing controversial about that result is that religious shroud fanatics don’t like it.

As far as being more open minded about the shroud (if that’s what you mean) - some of us are completely open minded about any of these things. In the case of the shroud and Jabba, all that’s happening is that some of us are acknowledging that the C14 results are truly objective and valid as far as anyone can honestly tell (that’s how & why they got published). Whereas what Jabba is citing as “scientific evidence” from shroud websites and believers like Ray Rogers, is not remotely objective at all, and in many instances actually seems to be deliberately dishonest.

[pakeha]

Found at a Shroud site:
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...ans-turin.html

Apparently Charles Freeman has written something that has raised blisters.
http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shrou...uided_journey/

Quote:

...If the Shroud of Turin had not been photographed in 1898 and its haunting image revealed, it is unlikely that it would have stood out from the rest. It was never recognized as anything very special until the sixteenth century and was in its own time considered a fake, although such denunciations were often made by shrine guardians who feared their own lucrative relic cults might be threatened by rivals. Calvin probably is aware of it but lists it among many others. The shroud at Compiegne had the most respectable pedigree, the abbey had held it since 877. The shroud at the Abbey at Cadouin on the pilgrimage route to Compostella was probably the most lucrative. The abbey claimed that its shroud had been brought back from the Holy Land after the First Crusade had captured Jerusalem in 1099. Indeed it had been, but we know that, as it still exists, that it is a fine piece of cloth from the Fatimid workshops, as were many other cloths and veils brought back as genuine relics by gullible crusaders.

I'm reading Freeman's article as I watch the battle at Silverstone.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Ravenwood

The one thing about the shrould that always puzzled me, is if you fold it so that the front and the back half of the images line up, the body that allegedly produced the image would have to be like an inch thick...

Ravenwood,
- Ive wondered about that myself, and so far, don't have a clear answer...
- The best I can do is suggest that what looks like the beginning of the back of the head is really the top of head... I'll have to find a better picture. I don't remember anyone answering that question. As I have time, I'll look around.
--- Jabba

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ravenwood,
- Ive wondered about that myself, and so far, don't have a clear answer...
- The best I can do is suggest that what looks like the beginning of the back of the head is really the top of head... I'll have to find a better picture. I don't remember anyone answering that question. As I have time, I'll look around.
--- Jabba

Have you considered it might be a 14th century, painted, forgery?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Please take the trouble to verify your links.
There is neither a #39 nor a #43 in the link you gave me...

Pakeha,
- That paper is a little confusing -- there being two parts. The first part is where you'll find those numbers and links.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Have you considered it might be a 14th century, painted, forgery?

Ravenwood,
- Sure, but why would this crafty forger screw that up?
- Also, if you really dig into the evidence, it's pretty clear that this wasn't a painting.
--- Jabba

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Have you considered it might be a 14th century, painted, forgery?

Of course not. That's the one thing a True Believer can't do--consider, even for an instant, that their position may be wrong. That's fundamentally why Jabba can't provide the amount of contamination necessary--to think in those terms is to entertain the possibility that you're wrong, and he simply isn't allowed to do that.

A scientist, on the other hand, is REQUIRED to ask "What if I'm wrong?" Thus we're free to ask any question we deem important, and follow the data anywhere it leads us.

More than anything else, that willingness to be proven wrong is what separates a real scientist from the likes of Jabba. It's not our conclusions, but our methods.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Don't take this the wrong way, because it is not your doing, but Jabba is adopting you as the sole spokesperson for all of the contributers on this thread.

Abaddon,
- All I'm asking Dave to do is tell me which q/c (question/comment) to answer next (if he accepts the job, I'm sure that he will suggest q/c's other than his own). I'm just trying to get someone else to blame for all the q/c's I'm leaving behind... And obviously, Dave is my best choice in that he seems genuinely open-minded. I mean, that's the truth.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Their failure to use the evidence to reach the conclusion, instead the assumption of the conclusion then the discarding or twisting of any evidence that contradicts it.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Gao

This is pure speculation that isn't useful without evidence that this is in fact the case...

Gao,
- Dave had asked me for my best guess (speculation) as to how the reweave would have been accomplished. And, while I didn't give citations, I did point to supportive claims that researchers have made -- e.g., that Fleury just said not to worry, as the cloth is all the same.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Their failure to use the evidence to reach the conclusion, instead the assumption of the conclusion then the discarding or twisting of any evidence that contradicts it.

Mashuna,
- You don't do the same thing?
--- Jabba

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Because three different teams with experience in C14 testing tested the shroud as well as control samples at three different labs. The three teams came up with consistent results on all the samples. Those results proved conclusively that the shroud is medieval. Instead of accepting definitive evidence, shroudies twisted and turned to find any reason to reject the results: there were massive amounts of invisible contamination on the shroud samples which all three labs somehow managed not to account for, or magic pixies had produced a completely invisible repair far away from the image (even though there are very obvious repairs very close to the image).

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Abaddon,
- All I'm asking Dave to do is tell me which q/c (question/comment) to answer next (if he accepts the job, I'm sure that he will suggest q/c's other than his own). I'm just trying to get someone else to blame for all the q/c's I'm leaving behind... And obviously, Dave is my best choice in that he seems genuinely open-minded. I mean, that's the truth.
--- Jabba

You're what?

This is your interpretation of 'honest debate', is it?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?

Empirical data. Until a shroudy provides us with the amount of contamination necessary to make a 1st century cloth give a C14 date of the 14th century, your argument has NO foundation. Period. Full stop. Until you provide that data, YOU HAVE NOTHING. The fact that you still believe that the shroud is from the 1st century without evidence is the definition of bias.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Shroudies posting drivel like this is a fair indicator of the reason:

Originally Posted by Jabba

And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating.

In their minds, the scientific analysis of the thing is trumped by bleefs.

Their whole approach is based on a foregone conclusion that the shroud is the real deal and anything that doesn't fit that scenario is wrong.

It's no different to any other form of religious fanaticism, in other words.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Mashuna,
- You don't do the same thing?
--- Jabba

What a ridiculous question.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/reweave.htm

Here's a company that actually does invisible weaving. The French reweaving style works only for very small pieces of the garment, and requires threads to be taken from other parts of hte garment. If I'm reading it correctly, the threads are woven into the textile, then that weave is extended across the damaged portion. It will look invisible to the casual eye, but hardly to a trained one. This is like maille--when I'm working with a big piece minor errors that no one else can see stick out at me, because I'm so used to looking at it. Similarly, someone used to looking at cloth will see the variation in the weave pattern pretty quickly. It's good enough that no one would worry about wearing a rewoven shirt or pair of pants, but it's not truly invisible by any stretch of the imagination. And that's giving you the best of it:...

Dinwar,
- Do you agree that we now have two sets of experts disagreeing with each other? If so, I'll have to do some further analysis. Hopefully, you'll need to do some as well.
--- Jabba

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

For the same reason creationists are considered more biased than those who accept the evidence for evolution.

When all the evidence supports position A and none supports position B, pointing this out is not an example of bias. Asserting that position B is supportable and wilfully misrepresenting the evidence in an attempt to justify that assertion is an example of bias.

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I gotta ask. What do you think of their answers about bias?
--- Jabba

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Because shroudies say things like this:

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ravenwood,
- Sure, but why would this crafty forger screw that up?

If something looks obviously wrong, that's evidence that it's NOT a forgery because a clever forger wouldn't make an obvious mistake.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Sceptics will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that means abandoning long held, even cherished belief. Shroudies will not change their mind no matter what evidence is presented.

For example, what evidence would it take for you to accept that the shroud is a mediaeval artefact? Is there any evidence that would get you to accept that?

[Olowkow]

That shroud is actually a self portrait of Socrates.



I'm sure of it because I can't imagine it being Jesus' shroud. Socrates probably knew how to fake the C14...I'm just guessing though.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Lucian

If something looks obviously wrong, that's evidence that it's NOT a forgery because a clever forger wouldn't make an obvious mistake.

We know someone else who thinks exactly like this, don't we?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by the above link
Piece Weave on a solid color material may show a discernible square outline.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...Doesn't matter, though, since a patch would be a BETTER place to take the sample than an unaltered part of the artifact. The trace element analysis proves that the sample is from the exact same cloth as the rest of the shroud--meaning that even if there was a re-woven patch it's re-woven from the exact same threads as the rest of the shroud, and therefore from the exact same time, and therefore the C14 age holds true. In fact, if they took the threads from numerous parts of the shroud (a likely method, to get enough material without making an obvious hole of equal size to the one being fixed) it would be BETTER to use the patch, because it'd represent a more or less random sample, and therefore contamination ... in any one area would be overwhelmed by the relatively clean threads from all the rest of the areas.

Dinwar,
- I think I understand what you're saying, but not sure. Can you try again?
--- Jabba

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I'm just trying to get someone else to blame for all the q/c's I'm leaving behind...

Wow. You want to make others responsible for your own failures. After all it is _you_ who is constantly tap-dancing around, or even completely ignoring, the issues at hand. It _is_ your fault, and it's only you who is to blame for that.

What you are trying to do there, and openly admit to, is just disgusting.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Mashuna,
- You don't do the same thing?
--- Jabba

The point of the scientific method is to avoid doing this. It can be easy to do, hence the importance of ensuring that one doesn`t fall prey to this error. If it does happen, recognize it and correct it. Don`t make the same fundamental error repeatedly.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...(and of course, we don't know how much contamination is needed because our resident shroud "expert" is unwilling or unable to do the basic algebra necessary to calculate it)

Dinwar,
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth, but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out. You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Why do you guys think that shroudies are more biased than skeptics?
--- Jabba

Well, as a Christian who believes in God and Jesus, you already told us (earlier in this thread) that you want to believe the shroud is authentic.

Whereas to people like me, it doesn't matter at all whether it's from biblical times or not.

That would seem highly likely to lead you into what someone else called "confirmation bias", ie a bias of wishing to confirm your belief in the shroud and it's support for your faith.

That's why shroud believing Christians are likely to be more biased than sceptics who could not care less about the shroud.

Was that not obvious to you?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ravenwood,

Who?

Quote:

- Sure, but why would this crafty forger screw that up?

Because it only has to be good enough to fool the more credulous, of whom there still seem to be plenty despite better education and the advances of science.

Quote:

- Also, if you really dig into the evidence, it's pretty clear that this wasn't a painting.

Well, however it was created, since it is carbon-dated to the 14th century it can't be a burial shroud from the 1st century.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth, but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out. You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba

I'm pretty sure the answer has been given in this thread, more than once. Are you not reading the responses you get?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- Do you agree that we now have two sets of experts disagreeing with each other? If so, I'll have to do some further analysis. Hopefully, you'll need to do some as well.
--- Jabba

Oh dear. This has become entirely hilarious.

Hands up all those who still want to join Jabba in debate and re-debate and re-re-debate of his every conceivable issue ... “ this is a FRIGGIN INTERNET DISCSSION GROUP after all ", lol

Jabba, you don’t have any valid scientific evidence (that’s why your sources can’t ever get anything published) … but the C14 is valid scientific evidence - it's very clear and direct evidence of a 13th-14th century date, sorry).

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth,

Than you're a fool. If you can't calculate this number you do not know enough about carbon dating to critique the methods. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT boils down to proving that exactly this amount of contamination is present. If any more or less is present YOU ARE WRONG.

I'm sorry, but I cannot comprehend how an honest person can say that they don't see any reason to know their own central argument.

Quote:

but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out.

It's been MONTHS. If you could do it you'd have done it by now. And that's being EXTREMELY generous--you've stated that you have studied the shroud for 20 years. The fact that you've never thought to ask "Gee, I wonder how much contamination it would take to make my argument true" shows that you've given this matter no actual thought.

Quote:

You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.

No, I haven't. I suggested that you read an isotopic geochemistry book, but I haven't given you the equation. That equation is so bloody basic to radiometric dating that I expect someone who feels confident to critique a radiometric study to at least be able to find the equation without assistance.

Thus far you've presented exactly one skill in this thread: shifting the blame for your own failings. This quote is nothing more than your attempt to make it MY fault that you can't figure out the basics of the field you're presuming to be an expert in (and make no mistake, arguing that you know more than the people who were chosen by people who were biased against the conclusion reached to do the study means that you believe you are an expert). Nothing here is your fault--it's all everyone else. They don't give you enough time, they don't provide you the data you need despite it being readily available all over the web, etc. ad nauseum.

Your entire argument rests on the C14 issue. You tell me--what does it say that you don't know even the basics of this argument, after 20 years?

Quote:

- Sure, but why would this crafty forger screw that up?

We're talking about a time period in which an iron nail could be considered a holy relic from the True Cross, without any documentation or corroboration.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

We know someone else who thinks exactly like this, don't we?

We do, but really proponents of all fringe theories seem to work the same way: pick itty bitty holes in the conventional explanation; propose alternative suggestions. Fortunately, you don't have to stick with one alternative--it's contamination! it's a patch! it's a patch made up entirely of invisible contamination! When one alternative gets knocked down, move on to the next. When they've all been dealt with, start over. If there's a glaringly obvious problem with the fringe point of view, that's just evidence in its favor because forgers/the NWO/writers of the New Testament wouldn't have made such a glaringly obvious mistake, so there must be some other explanation.

And of course you can't trust so-called experts: if they're not actually "in on it" (whatever "it" happens to be) they have a vested interest in supporting the conventional wisdom. That's why, when all's said and done, you can really only trust YouTube.

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I'm pretty sure the answer has been given in this thread, more than once. Are you not reading the responses you get?

Obviously not. And he now wants to have someone to take the blame for his failures, as he has openly said.

Greetings,

Chris

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth, but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out. You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was... I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba

Dinwar is right. You pretend to critique the 14C lab result, but you have no the slightiest clue on what would be needed to have such a contamination to make the shroud look so much younger. When you central argument is that the 14C dating is wrong due to contamination that is trully foolish. Now imagine you were to calculate that number, and found out the amount of modern sout/carbon needed for such contamination to shift the age by 1200 years would mean that a great percentage (the majority) of the carbon of the sample is modern, and from photography of the sample it is obviously not the case, that would make you appear very foolish.

Now you udnerstand why Dinwar is asking you for that calculation over and over ?

BY the way if you want to know, making such a calculation, and taking a very rough approximation, I get that a sample 2000 years old should have 78% 14C left, a sample from from 750 years ago ( from year ~1250 ) has 91% 14C left.

So you have the following :
Time period 14C left quantity per mole
Modern carbon 100% 1 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so 6.0 10^11 per mole
0 AD carbon 78% 0,78 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~4,7 10^11 per mole
Seemingly 1250 AD 91% 0,91 carbon 14C per 1 trillion C so ~5,5 10^11 per mole

Let us define the quantity Mc , Mh, Mt as follow :
Mh=historic quantity of carbon original
Mt=total sample given
Mc=contaminating foreign modern carbon
m Carbon molar mass

It is obvious that Mt=Mh+Mc and also that the relationship ebtween the carbon quantity is fixed (number carbon 14 sample=contaminated carbon 14+historical 14C)

What Dinwar asked you is how would you calculate Mc knowing Mt and knowing the Mh carbon has only 78% carbon left, and knowing that the apparent age is only 750 year old and apparent 14C quantity is 91%.

using the crappy calc tool from windows and using a sample size simplifying the equation I got a final answer which is VERY interresting.

Really do the calculation. And then when you have got the contaminant quantity , tell us from where it could possibly come and still look like a normal cloth fiber.

PS: if you do not know the original weight of the sample, do like me and take 1 mg to simply the equations.

PPS: actually if you calculate in concentration of 14C among 12C you don't even need that at all.

[Aepervius]

Also spoiler alert , imagine you have something with a concentration of ~0.8 (0.78) and something of concentration of 1, how much of both you mix to get a final concentration of ~0.9 (0.91) ? I would say , half of the first and half of the second. (1.0+0.8)/2=0.9. Now unless I made an obvious error somewhere, it looks to me that scientist would certainly have remarked that their cloth fiber were HALF contaminated by foreign carbon. Like Sout.

[Aepervius]

If I have not done an error in my calculation or assumption, I predict (for the million dollar) that Jabba will either ignore the psot, or leave the thread not to come back ever.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was...

If only someone would invent some sort of way to make notes. Like some kind of material that people could make marks on and some sort of implement which could make marks. Or, even better, some sort of electronic version. Some sort of electronic pad on which you could make notes. They could even bundle it in with people's operating systems. They could call it Windows Padnote or something.

If only we lived in such a world, eh?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- I disagree that a credible opponent for you in this debate would need to know how to calculate the contamination needed in order to get 1300 on a 1st century cloth . . .

Of course you disagree. If you were a credible opponent you wouldn't, but alas . . .

Originally Posted by Jabba

. . . but I seem to have some time to see if I can figure it out.

You've had years in which to do so. A last-minute rally seems highly unllikely at this point.

Originally Posted by Jabba

You've directed me to something to read already, but I can't remember what it was...

It was science. I don't think you forget it so much as you actually repel it in the same way a duck repels water.

Originally Posted by Jabba

I'll look around for myself until you give me some help.
--- Jabba

No you won't.