Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

Originally Posted by davefoc

This article is not without its problems as evidence that the C14 sample area was not a patch.
1. The biases of the author - He is promoting his own theory of why the C14 dating was in error so he has a bias to prove that Rogers' theory is wrong.
2. He references images but unfortunately the images in his report don't seem to be in the on-line version.
3. His claims about the similarity of the patch area to the rest of the shroud seem to rest on x-ray fluorescence reported by Rogers and Schwalbe in PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN A Summary of the 1978 Investigation.

... etc.

As we discussed when first mentioning that article by Mark Antonacci - Antonacci is in fact a believer in the authenticity of the shroud, and it was also then known that he was in the process of writing a book explaining why he believed the shroud was genuine.

However, if you thereby conclude that reduces his credibility on the basis that he is promoting his own book, and wishes to discredit the idea of a patch which Rogers actually got from Benford and Marino who were also writing their own pro shroud book at that time, then just look at what Antonacci says in his first 3 pages of that link concerning how many people have actually examined that particular C14 area of the shroud, inc. taking microscopically detailed photos of that area.

What he says there in those first 3 pages is not a matter of any bias, is it? It appears to be a matter of undisputed fact that all of those people have examined that area of the shroud in the way he describes.

And it also appears to be a fact, that none of those many dozens of individuals, most of whom were life-long pro-shroud enthusiasts (inc Ray Rogers and Luigi Gonella) ever made any mention of thinking there was a patch, until after the C14 dates were published, did they? And that IS a question, ie - do you know of any objections about a patch in that area prior to the C14 testing?

Apart from Ray Rogers himself, who along with other members of STURP, examined the shroud and took tape samples of loose debris in the 1970’s, those people included all those present when the C14 sample was cut, as well as Flury-Lemberg, Prof Ghibirtia and others who restored the shroud in 2002, members of the C14 labs who then examined their samples in microscopic detail (inc. taking magnified photos), and all those involved in cutting and testing the sample for Gilbert Raes.

But apparently none of those people ever suggested any patch or repair, not even under numerous photos through high power microscopic photography. It seems that only after the C14 results did Ray Rogers echo the claims of Benford and Marino in thinking there must have been an invisible repair.

OK, without going any further into that, and without going into any discussion of any experiments with light banding or any other scientific testing - why do you think the above history of those who actually examined the C14 sample area of the shroud is a matter of Antonacci being biased due to him having a book in preparation? Is the above history of who actually examined the shroud not a matter of fact rather than any claimed “bias”?

And, given the above history of who actually examined the shroud, and how, why and when they did that, why do you think that is less convincing to you than some claimed experiment with something called “light banding” which afaik was never actually published in any real science journal? IOW - even before we get to examining any claimed scientific tests, why do you think the above history may be less convincing than the claim by Ray Rogers who examined a few microscopically small fibres that he says were sent to him by Luigi Gonella?

Is it not a fact, that Rogers himself cannot possibly know what those few fibres actually were, or where they came from? What did Gonella himself ever say about how he is supposed to have obtained those few fibres? Do you know? What actually is the providence or “chain of custody” for the few fibres claimed by Rogers?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

And this is evidence that the cloth is 1st C because....?
Were the two in charge searching for the invisible patch so that they could take the sample from there so as to ensure a 14C date?
If said patch is undetectable by the unassisted eye, how did they find it?
In the immortal words of Pauline Hansen : please explain

Exactly.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by tsig

delete

Not necessarily. One of the weirder aspects of learning geology is watching crystals become invisible in the proper solution. It has to do with their index of refraction. However, it only works for clear crystals, and only for light--when you touch it (with proper protective equipment, of course) you can certainly feel them! And since it's different material, different wavelengths react differently to it--meaning under the right light you can see different colors.

As any Halo player will tell you, "invisible" doesn't mean "impossible to detect", it merely means "impossible to see with the unaided eye". This leaves us all kinds of tests, such as trace element analysis. Which was performed, and is pretty much definitive.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by IanS

As we discussed when first mentioning that article by Mark Antonacci - Antonacci is in fact a believer in the authenticity of the shroud, and it was also then known that he was in the process of writing a book explaining why he believed the shroud was genuine.

However, if you thereby conclude that reduces his credibility on the basis that he is promoting his own book, and wishes to discredit the idea of a patch which Rogers actually got from Benford and Marino who were also writing their own pro shroud book at that time, then just look at what Antonacci says in his first 3 pages of that link concerning how many people have actually examined that particular C14 area of the shroud, inc. taking microscopically detailed photos of that area.

I thought the issue of Antonacci's bias was important because he makes several claims that can't be verified in that paper without further research if they can be verified at all. However I agree that the issue of his biases cuts both ways, and maybe the fact that he is a shroud authenticity supporter should lend more credibility to his negative views of the invisible patch theory.

Quote:

What he says there in those first 3 pages is not a matter of any bias, is it? It appears to be a matter of undisputed fact that all of those people have examined that area of the shroud in the way he describes.

I thought he made several good arguments that the invisible patch theory is bogus that have been put forth many times in this thread. Most of them seem very solid to me. I didn't rehash those in my post but if you have any doubt:
1. I think it wildly unlikely that an invisible patch is possible that could have been missed by the people that have examined the shroud closely and the people that have photographed the shroud.
2. I think it is very unlikely that such a technically very difficult kind of patching would have been attempted on the shroud without there having been any documentary evidence for it.
3. I think the ad hoc nature of the invisible patch claim is highly suspicious which suggests that the basis of the claim is just wishful thinking by shroud authenticity supporters.
4. I think that the evidence put forth to support the invisible patch theory has been largely discredited.

Quote:

And it also appears to be a fact, that none of those many dozens of individuals, most of whom were life-long pro-shroud enthusiasts (inc Ray Rogers and Luigi Gonella) ever made any mention of thinking there was a patch, until after the C14 dates were published, did they? And that IS a question, ie - do you know of any objections about a patch in that area prior to the C14 testing?

Apart from Ray Rogers himself, who along with other members of STURP, examined the shroud and took tape samples of loose debris in the 1970’s, those people included all those present when the C14 sample was cut, as well as Flury-Lemberg, Prof Ghibirtia and others who restored the shroud in 2002, members of the C14 labs who then examined their samples in microscopic detail (inc. taking magnified photos), and all those involved in cutting and testing the sample for Gilbert Raes.

But apparently none of those people ever suggested any patch or repair, not even under numerous photos through high power microscopic photography. It seems that only after the C14 results did Ray Rogers echo the claims of Benford and Marino in thinking there must have been an invisible repair.

OK, without going any further into that, and without going into any discussion of any experiments with light banding or any other scientific testing - why do you think the above history of those who actually examined the C14 sample area of the shroud is a matter of Antonacci being biased due to him having a book in preparation? Is the above history of who actually examined the shroud not a matter of fact rather than any claimed “bias”?

To be clear I didn't mean that anything that Antonacci wrote was affected by his biases. I merely took note of the possibility. Where Antonacci made claims that I had seen primary or good sources for I didn't even think his biases were relevant. Where he made claims that I had to trust him that he had reasonably characterized the work of others I was willing to acknowledge the possibility that his biases may have colored his interpretations of the evidence.

Quote:

And, given the above history of who actually examined the shroud, and how, why and when they did that, why do you think that is less convincing to you than some claimed experiment with something called “light banding” which afaik was never actually published in any real science journal? IOW - even before we get to examining any claimed scientific tests, why do you think the above history may be less convincing than the claim by Ray Rogers who examined a few microscopically small fibres that he says were sent to him by Luigi Gonella?

Is it not a fact, that Rogers himself cannot possibly know what those few fibres actually were, or where they came from? What did Gonella himself ever say about how he is supposed to have obtained those few fibres? Do you know? What actually is the providence or “chain of custody” for the few fibres claimed by Rogers?

I think most of the above questions arise because the intent of my post wasn't as clear as it might have been. As I noted above I believe the arguments against the invisible patch theory even without the chemical homogeneity arguments and the banding arguments are very powerful and perhaps sufficient for a conclusion that the invisible patch theory is bogus. What I was looking for was proof for two other lines of argument that the invisible patch theory was bogus. The trace element analysis argument put forth by Dinwar and the banding argument which I think I first saw in Antonacci's paper. The banding argument looks to be a particularly strong argument if it is true (and I think the image I included suggests that it is). Even if one believes that an invisible patch is possible, could a patch be done so as that the varying opacity of the threads of the reweave line up with the threads of the unpatched area?

[Jabba]

Dave,
- See below.
--- Jabba

Originally Posted by davefoc

I thought the issue of Antonacci's bias was important because he makes several claims that can't be verified in that paper without further research if they can be verified at all. However I agree that the issue of his biases cuts both ways, and maybe the fact that he is a shroud authenticity supporter should lend more credibility to his negative views of the invisible patch theory.

- Sounds reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by davefoc

I thought he made several good arguments that the invisible patch theory is bogus that have been put forth many times in this thread. Most of them seem very solid to me. I didn't rehash those in my post but if you have any doubt:
1. I think it wildly unlikely that an invisible patch is possible that could have been missed by the people that have examined the shroud closely and the people that have photographed the shroud.
2. I think it is very unlikely that such a technically very difficult kind of patching would have been attempted on the shroud without there having been any documentary evidence for it.
3. I think the ad hoc nature of the invisible patch claim is highly suspicious which suggests that the basis of the claim is just wishful thinking by shroud authenticity supporters.
4. I think that the evidence put forth to support the invisible patch theory has been largely discredited.

- Good points. I'll see what I can do for answers.

Originally Posted by davefoc

To be clear I didn't mean that anything that Antonacci wrote was affected by his biases. I merely took note of the possibility. Where Antonacci made claims that I had seen primary or good sources for I didn't even think his biases were relevant. Where he made claims that I had to trust him that he had reasonably characterized the work of others I was willing to acknowledge the possibility that his biases may have colored his interpretations of the evidence.

- Sounds reasonable.

Originally Posted by davefoc

I think most of the above questions arise because the intent of my post wasn't as clear as it might have been. As I noted above I believe the arguments against the invisible patch theory even without 1) the chemical homogeneity arguments and 2) the banding arguments are very powerful and perhaps sufficient for a conclusion that the invisible patch theory is bogus. What I was looking for was proof for two other lines of argument that the invisible patch theory was bogus. 3) The trace element analysis argument put forth by Dinwar and 4) the banding argument which I think I first saw in Antonacci's paper. The banding argument looks to be a particularly strong argument if it is true (and I think the image I included suggests that it is). 5) Even if one believes that an invisible patch is possible, could a patch be done so as that the varying opacity of the threads of the reweave line up with the threads of the unpatched area?

- 5 more issues I need to address -- 9 altogether.
- This will take awhile, but I'll try to answer them all, one at a time.
- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I'm going to be writing to people for help. Do you mind if I quote your issues?
--- Jabba

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- See below.
--- Jabba
- Sounds reasonable to me.

- Good points. I'll see what I can do for answers.

- Sounds reasonable.

- 5 more issues I need to address -- 9 altogether.
- This will take awhile, but I'll try to answer them all, one at a time.
- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Ahh, more tap dancing around the issues. Instead of answering, more hold up. What else to expect.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- I'm going to be writing to people for help. Do you mind if I quote your issues?
--- Jabba

Now this is just the best so far. Not only do you want to have Dave to take the blame for your failures, as you already openly told us, but you also want others to come up with "answers". Probably so that you can blame Dave for their failures as well?

How long are supposedly into this topic? 20something years? If so, you have obviously wasted 20 years of your life. After all, it's pretty clear that in all these years you completely failed to prepare yourself for even the most simplest questions.

What a hoot....

[anduin]

As a lurker, I predict that Jabba won't answer any of Dave's points, he will just continue to waffle, and in 10 pages or more he will go back to stating that the invisible patch is possible.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by anduin

As a lurker, I predict that Jabba won't answer any of Dave's points, he will just continue to waffle, and in 10 pages or more he will go back to stating that the invisible patch is possible.

Just like he's done in the past when outher points he's made have been debunked.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In my next post, I’ll try to take up where I left off.

--- Jabba

Waffling, prevaricating, posting silly abstracts of what you might put in your next silly abstract?

Why not try something new?

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- See below.
--- Jabba
- Sounds reasonable to me.

- Good points. I'll see what I can do for answers.

- Sounds reasonable.

- 5 more issues I need to address -- 9 altogether.
- This will take awhile, but I'll try to answer them all, one at a time.
- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Quelle surprise.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Good points. I'll see what I can do for answers.


- 5 more issues I need to address -- 9 altogether.
- This will take awhile, but I'll try to answer them all, one at a time.
- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

Instead of saying you will see what you can do for answers, and noting how many issues you need to address, and telling us it will take awhile (we know that form recent experience) and assuring us you will be back, just do the bloody answers!

[Dinwar]

Quote:

3) The trace element analysis argument put forth by Dinwar

Just to clarify something: I was referencing a discussion earlier in the thread. I've not actually seen those references; I've merely seen that this issue hasn't been addressed.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- I'm going to be writing to people for help. --- Jabba

How many times have you said that you are seeking extra help? It must be dozens of times now!

What do you need help with? Either you do have a genuine independent science paper disputing the C14, or else you don't ... and you have already admitted that you most definitely do NOT have any such paper.

You simply don’t have any genuine answer to that. And it’s certainly not an answer to say you will be yet again "seeking more help".

[Pixel42]

How can someone be convinced that there are good reasons to doubt a piece of peer-reviewed science conducted under more scrutiny than any other such experiment has ever been subjected to, and yet not know what those reasons are without consulting someone else?

[Filippo Lippi]

Lies for Jesus

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

How can someone be convinced that there are good reasons to doubt a piece of peer-reviewed science conducted under more scrutiny than any other such experiment has ever been subjected to, and yet not know what those reasons are without consulting someone else?

I asked that question about 3 months ago. I'm yet to receive a reply.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I asked that question about 3 months ago. I'm yet to receive a reply.

I'm sure in a few days Jabba will respond to you saying he'll have an answer for you ... later.

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I’ve asked for some help re most of your questions (I paraphrased them rather than quoted them, but then realized that it should be perfectly all right to simply provide a link to this thread and page.)
- But then, I don’t think that I need outside help on one of your questions, and I need YOUR help on two more -- all copied below. I think that I can answer the first one by myself, but I’ll need some elaboration from you in order to answer, or have answered, the other two.

1. I think the ad hoc nature of the invisible patch claim is highly suspicious which suggests that the basis of the claim is just wishful thinking by shroud authenticity supporters.
2. the chemical homogeneity arguments
3.The trace element analysis argument put forth by Dinwar…

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

I'm sure in a few days Jabba will respond to you saying he'll have an answer for you ... later.

Tricked us! Not that it's ever going to get us anywhere, but the speed and efficiency of Jabba's prevarication is definitely improving. The turnaround time between asking a question and receiving a non-answer will be down to mere minutes before long.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

3.The trace element analysis argument put forth by Dinwar…

This is NOT MY CLAIM. I DID NOT put it forward. I AM NOT the originator of the claim--I merely reference it.

Since you are unwilling or incapable of looking through the thread to find the original argument, I'll do the work for you: Here is the post I keep referring to, which includes the link to the study and a quote of the highlights.

Please stop getting this wrong. This is important. Your insistence on asserting that I put forward the argument opens the door for you to demand I defend it, and to dismiss it (dishonestly, but with the appearance of rationality) if I can't. I'm NOT putting it forward--I'm merely reminding you of an argument you've never addressed. It's up to you to read that argument and understand it.

It's also a matter of honesty. I've never claimed that it was my argument, and in fact I've stated repeatedly that it's not mine, I'm merely referencing it. If you can't get something that simple correct, what hope do you have of getting something as complex as a detailed archaeological analysis right?

Quote:

- I’ve asked for some help re most of your questions

While I'm in no way disparaging asking for help when needed, I do have to wonder why someone who's spent 20 years studying the shroud has to ask for help for extremely basic questions. We're not talking about extremely obscure analyses that no one's ever heard of; we're talking basic, good archaeological practices.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is NOT MY CLAIM. I DID NOT put it forward. I AM NOT the originator of the claim--I merely reference it.

Since you are unwilling or incapable of looking through the thread to find the original argument, I'll do the work for you: Here is the post I keep referring to, which includes the link to the study and a quote of the highlights.

Please stop getting this wrong. This is important. Your insistence on asserting that I put forward the argument opens the door for you to demand I defend it, and to dismiss it (dishonestly, but with the appearance of rationality) if I can't. I'm NOT putting it forward--I'm merely reminding you of an argument you've never addressed. It's up to you to read that argument and understand it.

...

For the record, I'm the one that attributed the argument to you. Whoever referenced it initially, it is an extremely good argument that the shroud is not a patch if the evidence that underlies Antonacci's claim can be verified. I think it is possible that it could be, but it is not straightforward. I read through the Schwalbe and Rogers paper that the claim seems to be based on and didn't find exact support for the claim but with more study I might find it.

[Dinwar]

From the original paper:

Quote:

Yet, this conclusion completely ignores the fact that X-ray fluorescence analysis on thirteen threads from the Raes sample indicated they had roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium and iron that was found on the rest of the Shroud.7

This pretty much disproves the notion that this is a patch. I'm familiar with strontium, and can say that it's highly dependent upon the substrate that the water passed over. It's also dependent upon precipitation. In a study I helped with in college we found that strontium levels in the delta of a river that passed over celestite-rich calcite and dolomite varied from several thousand ppm to several tens of ppm, and the only variable that can account for that is rain. It's also variable on the scale of months, years, etc. So strontium alone is a very strong argument. The calcium and iron are each SEPARATELY strong arguments as well.

Quote:

Like McCrone and Garza-Valdez, the bulk of Rogers’ examination in the above paper was based on his examination and observations of the Raes and radiocarbon samples under a microscope. Rogers largely interpreted the presence of a plant gum coating on the Raes and radiocarbon samples from his various microscopical observations of these samples, from which he then implied a repair had been made in this vicinity with the foreign linen dyed to match the rest of the Shroud or “…added by wiping a viscous liquid on the outside of the yarn.”9

This is the claim made, as far as the invisible patch goes. Basically Raes is arguing that stuff that can't possibly have the same trace element content was used to add a patch, and that textile experts couldn't notice that the threads had been artificially altered. A much more likely explanation is that the threads simply weren't artificially altered.

Quote:

Microscopical analysis is a valid scientific tool, but it is best used for Shroud analysis in conjunction with other more comprehensive tests. Unfortunately, depending upon the various magnifications, forms of lighting, their angles and degrees, different things can be seen or interpreted from microscopic examination, that are not confirmed by other tests that are more
comprehensive and definitive.

This is important. As someone who's spent a great deal of time looking through a microscope (SEM, petrographic, dissection, etc), I can attest to this. You start to go bugeyed, and if you're looking for something that's hard to see anyway it's really easy to see what isn't there. The whole Mars canals thing illustrates this point.

Quote:

Rogers did compare STURP’s pyrolysis mass spectrometry studies of samples from the rest of the Shroud to those from the Raes sample to make a secondary point that the gum coating on the Raes and radiocarbon samples was a petrosan. (The alleged existence of the gum coating was
found through Rogers’ microscopic examination which he illustrated by photomicroscopy.) Even here, this work was not very thorough or convincing and was incomplete.

Translation:Rogers is obviously not very good at this whole "experimentation" thing.

Quote:

While microscopy and photomicroscopy are valid scientific tools that are best used in
conjunction with other scientific tests, Rogers even failed to utilize these limited tools and their
analysis in the most appropriate circumstances. The best application of photomicroscopy to
prove or consider a repair hypothesis would be photomicroscopy of the Shroud itself, particularly
that performed in the vicinity of the radiocarbon site before 1988. Unfortunately, these
photomicrographs were not even discussed or considered by Rogers in his paper.

Make that REALLY bad. He used the wrong tools, and misused them anyway.

That's pretty much sufficient, in my opinion, to dismiss the patch concept. Unless Jabba has some other line of support, we're done here.

[Wolrab]

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

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. He's already got you for a non credible opponent. Do you think that in order to competently argue a technical issue, you should be competent in that issue?

Quote:

, 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

Jebus! Are you freaking serious? If you haven't noticed, everything here is written down, you don't have to remember, you just have to look back. You can even narrow it down to just Dinwar's posting history in this thread.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar:

SNIPed; breach of rule 0, rule 12.

[davefoc]

First a caveat in case there is any doubt: I think the available evidence strongly supports a conclusion that there is not an invisible patch in the area of the shroud where the C14 sampling was done and I think that probably all Antonacci's arguments are valid and that the evidence he claims for them is consistent with his characterization.

However, what I tried to pin down was the evidence for the chemical homogeneity that he claims for the sample area and the rest of the shroud.

Dinwar's post included this quote from Antonacci:

Quote:

Yet, this conclusion completely ignores the fact that X-ray fluorescence analysis on thirteen threads from the Raes sample indicated they had roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium and iron that was found on the rest of the Shroud.⁷

Reference 7 is a paper by Schwalbe and Rogers: PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN A Summary of the 1978 Investigation. This paper is just a summary of the work done by others so even here one can't find the original source for Antonacci's claim. The most relevant part of the Schwalbe/Rogers paper with regard to this issue may be contained in note 6 of their report:

Quote:

6. Morris et al. [9] were concerned that the detected trace elements may not have been uniquely associated with the Shroud. The ambiguity arose because the Holland backing cloth could not be removed from the Shroud for the measurements; technically, their data pertain to the double-cloth system. However, thirteen threads, removed from non-image, non-blood areas of the Shroud in November 1973 [41], were brought to America following the Turin study. X-ray fluorescence measurements were made on these with isotope sources of ⁵⁵Fe, ¹⁰⁹Cd, ¹⁴⁵Sm, and ⁵⁷Co for counting periods of 500-1000 min. These results showed roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium,strontium,and iron that were observed in the original 1978 Turin data. In addition, they showed smaller traces of potassium, chlorine, and possibly lead. The small sizes of the thread samples precluded quantitative estimates for these traces, but the later results suggest that the reported Turin measurements do pertain to the Shroud.

It sounds like the purpose of the original X-ray fluorescence testing of the thirteen threads was to establish that the results from the X-ray fluorescence testing done on the shroud was accurate for the shroud and was not contaminated by the fact that the backing was on the shroud when the X-ray fluorescence testing was done on the shroud. Antonacci seems to be claiming that since the concentration of various elements of the thirteen threads and the rest of the shroud are similar that the C14 sample area must have the same origin as the rest of the shroud.

How do the thirteen sample threads relate to the C14 test area? Are these the Raes sample or related to the Raes sample? Are these the "14 yarn segments of the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella"? I am a bit confused here and perhaps somebody could explain what was tested in America and how it is known that it came from an area that would be representative of the C14 sample area.

ETA: What's a petrosan?

[davefoc]

The articles cited below have probably already been linked to in this thread and even if they haven't been the arguments they contain have certainly been referenced in this thread. I listed the links because I thought they provided solid arguments against the invisible patch theory from credible sources that the people making statements in support of the invisible patch theory would find interesting.


The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and Reality
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

A clear overview of "invisible mending" and why a patch undetected by the people that have examined the Shroud of Turin is not possible.

From the last section of that article:

Quote:

Equally lacking any trace of evidence on the shroud is the hypothesis that a patch fixed onto the same minute spot which had been removed as a sample has falsified the result of the analysis. Where exactly had the patch been attached? How big was it? Was it so small that it covered only the sample area? Answers to these questions are lacking in the hypothesis of Benford/Marino and Rogers. They can only be given in a competent way by textile experts. One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!

This affirmation seems to be unacceptable to a natural scientist even if it comes from such an excellent textile scholar as Gabriel Vial who moreover made this judgment in his very own field of expertise. In any case, neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of
a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found, fig.17 and 18.

INVESTIGATING A DATED PIECE OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
Rachel A Freer-Waters, A J Timothy Jull
http://digitalcommons.library.arizon...3-fb8e0f303abe

An argument that the C14 sample area was not part of an invisible patch.

This quote is from the discussion section:

Quote:

In addition, we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. Rogers (2005) and others assert that the Raes and the “radiocarbon samples” he studied are dyed, in contrast to the main part of the shroud. As stated by Rogers (2005), “No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.” The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken “from the main part of the shroud.” Those removing the
samples at the time were aware of repair material. We conclude from our observations and the history of our sample, that our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud. There is no evidence to the contrary. We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously.

This seems like an effective rebuttal claim to the Rogers' claim that the C14 sample area had properties that were different from the rest of the shroud.

What I have not found so far is information about the American x-ray fluorescence testing of the thirteen threads that Antonacci referred to.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by davefoc

...How do the thirteen sample threads relate to the C14 test area? Are these the Raes sample or related to the Raes sample? Are these the "14 yarn segments of the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella"? I am a bit confused here and perhaps somebody could explain what was tested in America and how it is known that it came from an area that would be representative of the C14 sample area.

ETA: What's a petrosan?

Yes, the provenance of that mysterious batch of threads has been discussed here earlier. Thanks for summing up the dubious underpinnings of the shroudies' argument.

Quote:

What's a petrosan?

Possibly the lady who, in real life, inspired Puccini when he wrote this for Butterfly (CioCiosan) as sung by the divine Mirella Freni.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And this, as sung by La Callas.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Yes, the provenance of that mysterious batch of threads has been discussed here earlier. Thanks for summing up the dubious underpinnings of the shroudies' argument.

Exactly what is going on with regards to what was tested and where the thirteen threads alleged to have had x-ray fluoresence testing done on them came from is unclear to me. I am going to try to resolve this for a little while longer but I'm on the edge of giving up. Were any of the Rogers threads submitted to x-ray fluorescence testing? Are the 13 threads referred to in the Schwalbe/Rogers paper note 6 different than the threads Rogers claimed came from the Raes sample and the C14 sample area?

Quote:

Possibly the lady who, in real life, inspired Puccini when he wrote this for Butterfly (CioCiosan) as sung by the divine Mirella Freni.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And this, as sung by La Callas.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I am afraid my ignorance of opera does not allow me to understand your answer but I did enjoy the videos.

I now suspect that petrosan was just a misspelling of pentosan which Rogers referred to in his paper. I suspect that he was talking about the group of chemicals and that he was not making an allusion to Madame Butterfly. But I have an open mind on that.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by davefoc

... Were any of the Rogers threads submitted to x-ray fluorescence testing? Are the 13 threads referred to in the Schwalbe/Rogers paper note 6 different than the threads Rogers claimed came from the Raes sample and the C14 sample area?

I'm confused about that, myself.
In fact there doesn't seem to be any way of confirming the provenance of those threads at all.

Quote:

...I now suspect that petrosan was just a misspelling of pentosan which Rogers referred to in his paper. I suspect that he was talking about the group of chemicals and that he was not making an allusion to Madame Butterfly. But I have an open mind on that.

I'm sure you're right about Petro-san. No relation to CioCio-san.
Still, it was Sunday and any excuse to enjoy the magic of La Callas has to be legitimate.
Certainly more legit than those 13 threads, anyway.

[Dinwar]

You guys have raised some really good issues. You're right--given what's known about the xray analysis, we can't say much about it.

This illustrates one of the most annoying aspects of pseudoscience. Jabba wasn't the one to present this analysis. It's people who believe the shroud is fake that have done so. It's similar to how Creationists never point to new data--all of "flaws" they point to are either 1) non-existent, or 2) discovered by scientists studying evolution long before Creationists jump on them. This was a perfect opportunity for Jabba to point out what his research has shown, and why one counter-argument is false. Yet he couldn't--it took his opposition to dismantle the claim.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Indeed. You see, Jabba, this is what actual Shroud investigation looks like.

And it took 4 days to accomplish everything you can read over the last 2 pages. Now compare the progress made over the last 59 pages (7 months!) and see if you can understand why nobody on this thread takes you even remotely seriously.

Doing actual investigation is a much better approach than simply wishing that what you want to be true were true.

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I’ll try the homogeneity issue first: i.e., how do we explain the apparent fact that the calcium, iron and strontium contents of the Raes sample are roughly identical to that of the main portion of the Shroud?
- So far, at least, I haven’t been able to find an obvious explanation…

- Apparently, everyone accepts that these elements are introduced by the “retting,” -- and wherever and whenever the linen was retted, it would contain these elements as “trace elements.” However, the amount of these elements present should be somewhat different if one set was from 1st century Mideast, and the other, 16th century Europe.
- Accepting -- for the moment at least -- that the two sets are “roughly identical,” how different SHOULD they be, and how different ARE they? You and I don’t know.

- So far, I give the advantage on this “sub-issue” (round?) to your side (the dating validity side), but I’m still looking…

- I’ll be trying to take our discussion one baby step at a time. Let me know if you feel like I’m avoiding questions.

--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Indeed. You see, Jabba, this is what actual Shroud investigation looks like.

And it took 4 days to accomplish everything you can read over the last 2 pages. Now compare the progress made over the last 59 pages (7 months!) and see if you can understand why nobody on this thread takes you even remotely seriously.

Doing actual investigation is a much better approach than simply wishing that what you want to be true were true.

Squeegee,
- I've been involved for less than 4.5 months.
--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

<waffle>

Let me know if you feel like I’m avoiding questions.

I feel like you're avoiding questions.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- I've been involved for less than 4.5 months.
--- Jabba

Producing nothing in 4½ months as opposed to producing nothing in 7 months is hardly something to brag about.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Squeegee,
- I've been involved for less than 4.5 months.
--- Jabba

My understanding is that you stated upstream that you were a shroud "researcher" for decades. You might have been in this thread only for a few month, but any researcher worth its salt would be expert enough on this subject to have at least the objection at hand for a specific subject. You did not. The "opposition" found article and counter point alone (ETA). And that is the point which was brought in that post.

You are "researcher" in name only. The truth is that you are a believer, use believer behavior, use believer logic. YOu do not use any researcher behavior/logic or anything whatsoever.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

..- I've been involved for less than 4.5 months. ..

If that is so, why did you claim to have been investigating the TS for over 20 years at another forum?

[davefoc]

Jabba,
Please find a summary of the arguments against the invisible patch theory that have been put forth in this thread. Many of these arguments are powerful by themselves and even without other arguments would be enough to almost preclude the possibility of an invisible patch. When they are examined in the context of numerous other similarly strong arguments it is reasonable to conclude for all practical purposes that there is not an invisible patch in the area of the C14 sample and the invisible patch theory is false.

This, of course, will not stop shroud authenticity supporters from making arguments to support the invisible patch theory. That these kind of arguments exist is not probative with regard to the invisible patch theory. People deeply invested in shroud authenticity exist and they would be expected to make arguments in favor of shroud authenticity whether there is any rational basis for them or not. Thus, if somebody is trying to objectively examine evidence for the invisible patch theory it is necessary to examine the nature of the arguments and not just observe that they exist. If one does this in the case of the arguments in favor of the invisible patch theory I think the results will be clear. There are no arguments consistent with the evidence and reason that support the invisible patch theory.

The one argument which is not in this list is what I called the chemical homogeneity argument. This is the argument that the concentration of various elements is consistent in the shroud and the sample area. The original source of this argument might have been Antonacci. I was not able to find any source material to support Antonacci on this particular argument. The source of the 13 threads that he claims were tested is not clear and I could not find any documentation of the x-ray fluorescence testing that he claimed was done on the threads. I think there is a good chance that his argument is correct and that such testing was done. However, I think it is also possible that he made a good faith error on this.

Arguments against the Shroud of Turin invisible patch theory
1. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch
There is no known method of patching a material like the Shroud of Turin that would produce a patch that could have been undetected by the peoplethat have inspected the shroud.

Comment: See the article by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf) for a good discussion of this point. See also all the links and posts in this thread for information about invisible mending and why invisible mending or invisible weaving is not undetectable mending.

All that is necessary to falsify the above is to publish a single example of a fabric that has been repaired in a way that would have been undetected by the kind of examination that the shroud was given. This has not been done despite masses of internet bits being used up by people promoting the invisible patch theory.

2. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability
Even if it was possible to produce an invisible patch today the difficulties would have been much greater in the sixteenth century before the widespread availability of magnifying glasses and before the development of the compound microscope.

Comment: Not only does the lack of magnifying capability add another layer of difficulty, why would somebody create a patch that was only detectable with magnifying capability when no such capability was widely available?

3. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century
It would have been difficult if not impossible in the 16th century to create a new piece of fabric that so precisely matched the characteristics of a 1st century piece of fabric that the new material would not have been detected during the very careful examinations that the shroud has undergone particularly in 1982 when the cloth was carefully examined by STURP and in 2002 when the shroud backing was removed and restoration work was done on the shroud.

Comment: A common way of doing what is called "invisible mending" today is to take material from an inconspicuous place on the garment because it is difficult to match the existing threads well enough to fool the eye. If this was done on the shroud the C14 date wouldn't have been affected so that new material for the patch would have been required.

4. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud
A microscopic examination was done of the C14 sample material by Arizona scientists (Rachel A. Freer-Waters and A. J. Timothy Jull) and the area was observed to match other areas of the shroud in weave size and pattern.

Comment: The article by Freer-Waters and Jull is available here: http://digitalcommons.library.arizon...3-fb8e0f303abe The provenance of the sample they examined and photographed microscopically is well documented. The Arizona scientists made careful measurements of various properties of their shroud sample and found that they matched precisely the data about the shroud.

One of the main pieces of evidence put forth by Rogers that the C14 samples were done in an area where there was an invisible patch was that the C14 test area had traces of dye that weren't present in the main shroud. Freer-Waters and Jull did not find any signs of dyeing that was reported by Rogers on their C14 sample. Overall this paper provides a complete refutation of the Rogers' paper and it provides overwhelming evidence that the C14 test area was representative of the overall shroud.

5. Patch area was very carefully selected
The area for the patch was carefully selected after a month of careful study. There is no way that the scientists and scholars could not have seen that the samples they removed were from a patch.

Comment:
See http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shrou...a-response.htm for a discussion of this. See also many other comments by people involved in the selection process of the sample site for more information on this.

6. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already?
There is no apparent reason why somebody would attempt an invisible repair of the shroud when the shroud had numerous conventional patches already.

7. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch
There is no documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch on the shroud in existence today despite the fact that much of the history of the shroud was well documented and that history is available today.

8. Consistent banding through the C14 sample area
The threads in the C14 sample have the same density pattern as the threads in the adjoining areas.

Comment: This argument was put forth by Antonacci among others. The article he wrote challenging Rogers paper is available here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf. The argument is that there is a density pattern in the shroud that produces a kind of banding pattern when the shroud is carefully observed and that this banding pattern passes through the C14 sample area without any breaks or variations. This means that the individual making the hypothetical invisible patch to the shroud not only needed to make a patch with undetectable ends he needed to make a patch with threads that precisely matched the density of surrounding threads. The level of difficulty to make such a patch would be extreme even today. That such a patch would have been made in the 16th century is obviously nonsense. I didn't find a good visible light photograph to demonstrate this (Antonacci references them in his article but the on-line article doesn't have them) but I did find a radiograph of the area which I posted above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...86#post8447186)

9. Consistent C14 results throughout the sample area
At least some of the invisible patch theory involves the notion that C14 sample site consisted of a mixture of old and new threads. The C14 test results were significantly consistent with each other. If the C14 sample area consisted of a mixture of fabric from different times the sample area would need to have consisted of the same ratio of old and new thread throughout the sample.

Comment: This is a strong argument against the idea of a local reweave where part of the original shroud remained. The hypothetical patch not only needed to be undetectable by normal microscopic examination but the patch area need to have retained the same amount of original material throughout the sample area.

10. Ad-hoc nature of the invisible patch theory
The claim of an invisible patch arose as part of a general pattern by authenticity supporters to impugn the C14 results. The ad hoc nature of this process suggests the possibility that the main driver for the creation of the invisible patch theory was to create a reason to discredit the C14 results even without a scientifically justified basis.


Notes on the above list: I had wanted to document it better before I posted it, but when Jabba said that he wanted to use arguments extracted from a post earlier as the list he wished to address and that he wanted to address the chemical homogeneity argument first I decided to post it in the condition it is. None of the arguments are original to me. I believe that all of these arguments have already been made in this thread and most of them are based on evidence published in credible sources.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- I’ll try the homogeneity issue first: i.e., how do we explain the apparent fact that the calcium, iron and strontium contents of the Raes sample are roughly identical to that of the main portion of the Shroud?
- So far, at least, I haven’t been able to find an obvious explanation…

- Apparently, everyone accepts that these elements are introduced by the “retting,” -- and wherever and whenever the linen was retted, it would contain these elements as “trace elements.” However, the amount of these elements present should be somewhat different if one set was from 1st century Mideast, and the other, 16th century Europe.
- Accepting -- for the moment at least -- that the two sets are “roughly identical,” how different SHOULD they be, and how different ARE they? You and I don’t know.

- So far, I give the advantage on this “sub-issue” (round?) to your side (the dating validity side), but I’m still looking…

- I’ll be trying to take our discussion one baby step at a time. Let me know if you feel like I’m avoiding questions.

--- Jabba

If you are looking to me for a suggestion of where to start from me, I'd suggest item one in the list above, "Impossible to produce an invisible patch".

From my perspective, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, provides daunting arguments that it isn't possible in the article that was linked to. But I would suggest that you might just rely on your own common sense and do this experiment:

1. Obtain a piece of modern linen. Best would be a piece that had a 3:1 twill herringbone pattern but a simple weave will do.
2. Cut a piece of cloth from the fabric that is about the size of the piece removed from the shroud.
3. Reattach the piece that you removed so that it is unlikely that your repair would have been detected by a careful examination of the repaired fabric similar to the examination that the shroud underwent.

Even if you don't feel like cutting up an actual piece of cloth you might just try this as a thought experiment.

How do you propose to reweave in the removed piece of cloth so that the ends of the thread that you reweave in are undetectable?

If you think it would help, you might ask somebody on one of the shroud authenticity advocating sites to help with the experiment. Of course, the best would be to provide documentation where somebody has done such an experiment and they have a piece of cloth with a repair the size of the C14 sample area that is undetectable either by microscope or by a textile expert.

And of course this thought experiment involves a problem much easier than the hypothetical 16th century repairer would have faced since he probably needed to make the repair without a magnifying glass, he needed to create 16th century fabric that almost perfectly matched the 1st century fabric and and he needed to match his patch perfectly to the a 3:1 twill herringbone weave of the shroud which really ramps up the difficulty if one is attempting to weave a patch in an undetectable way.

As an aside when the argument was put forth that the invisible patch theory was impossible in this thread I quibbled internally a bit. I thought with a great deal of care and skill that somebody could probably do it and I considered a post to express that view. It was doing a thought experiment like the one I proposed above that convinced me that the invisible repair theory wasn't just wildly unlikely it was actually impossible. Provably impossible theories are not common. The invisible patch theory comes about as close to provably impossible as we humans can get to certainty.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

azzthom,
- I numbered your statements for easy referral.
- Re #1, I don't think that's true. Can you point me to your source. I'll look for mine...
- Re #2, unless I'm forgetting one, the carbon dating was done at only three laboratories -- Oxford, U of Ariz and the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich -- and on only three samples. In addition, the samples were not especially distinct -- together, they comprised one small corner of the Shroud. I can't remember the size of the corner, but each sample took up only a few square centimeters.
-Re #3, I'm pretty sure that all the peer reviewed articles on the carbon dating since the original Nature article in 1988 have concluded that the dating was invalid.

re #1: If you've spent TWENTY YEARS researching the shroud but haven't bothered to brush up on Roman crucifixion methods, you're not much of a researcher. Check out any blog on Roman archaeology--they found a crucified guy (not Jesus, obviously, but a guy who demonstrably had been nailed to a cross), and a lot of blogs picked up the story. They usually link to the original paper as well.

re #2: The number of labs is irrelevant. As long as the methods were good, the results were good. And since you've yet to demonstrate that the corner wasn't representative, one can only conclude that you wouldn't be happy unless the whole bloody thing was vaporized for C14 analysis.

re #3: You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence confirming this, and have yet to demonstrate any understanding of the issues. You can be as sure as you want--it's an uninformed opinion built upon a priori conclusions, bias, and speculation, rather than data (not an ad hom attack, by the way [to pre-empt that way to weasel out of addressing this issue], because I'm attacking your methods, which are certainly fair game).

Quote:

- I’ll try the homogeneity issue first: i.e., how do we explain the apparent fact that the calcium, iron and strontium contents of the Raes sample are roughly identical to that of the main portion of the Shroud?
- So far, at least, I haven’t been able to find an obvious explanation…

Here's proof that your methods are flawed. There's an obvious explanation: the area sampled is the same material, made at the same time, as the rest of the shroud. You refuse to accept that, though, even before you examine the data, so it's not even a possibility you will consider. You're looking for some alternate explanation to support your wild ideas--and ONLY explanations that support your ideas are valid in your mind.

This is not science. This is theology.

Quote:

- Accepting -- for the moment at least -- that the two sets are “roughly identical,” how different SHOULD they be, and how different ARE they? You and I don’t know.

Then you cannot comment on this. You have admitted your ignorance, and should stop there. ANY OTHER STATEMENT on your part is inherently dishonest (honesty consists of only stating what you can support with evidence).

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- I’ll try the homogeneity issue first: i.e., how do we explain the apparent fact that the calcium, iron and strontium contents of the Raes sample are roughly identical to that of the main portion of the Shroud?
- So far, at least, I haven’t been able to find an obvious explanation…

- Apparently, everyone accepts that these elements are introduced by the “retting,” -- and wherever and whenever the linen was retted, it would contain these elements as “trace elements.” However, the amount of these elements present should be somewhat different if one set was from 1st century Mideast, and the other, 16th century Europe.
- Accepting -- for the moment at least -- that the two sets are “roughly identical,” how different SHOULD they be, and how different ARE they? You and I don’t know.

- So far, I give the advantage on this “sub-issue” (round?) to your side (the dating validity side), but I’m still looking…

- I’ll be trying to take our discussion one baby step at a time. Let me know if you feel like I’m avoiding questions.

--- Jabba

I quoted this above but didn't respond to it and I meant to:
There are two arguments against what I called the chemical homogeneity argument and what has been called the trace element analysis argument also in this thread.

The first is that the claim is false and that the testing claimed by Antonacci to have occurred didn't occur or that he mischaracterized it. I spent considerable effort trying to confirm that this testing was done. As it stands now, I'm not sure and even if it was done the provenance of the material tested alleged to be representative of the sample area is not clear.

The second argument and the one you reference is that even if there is a close match the match might be the result of some kind of similarity in the environment that the two fabrics were created in one allegedly 1st century Palestine and the other 16th century Italy. I do not have an informed opinion about this. From my perspective, it seems very unlikely that two fabrics from very different areas would have similar concentrations of elements that are not an intrinsic part of the plant that produced the fabric. Dinwar seems to have specific knowledge about this kind of thing and I trust his judgment that similarity of concentration of these elements is a powerful indicator that the fabrics were produced in the same area.

However, I suspect that for Dinwar to make a good estimation as to the value of this evidence he would need to see the quantitative data about the concentrations of the various elements. I did find quantitative data on-line about the concentrations of the elements in question on the shroud based on x-ray fluorescence tests. I couldn't find similar information about the alleged test of the 13 threads with which to compare it to. You said this:

Quote:

...- Accepting -- for the moment at least -- that the two sets are “roughly identical,” how different SHOULD they be, and how different ARE they? You and I don’t know.

That seems right to me.

ETA: I took this to mean that published quantitative information about the results of the x-ray fluorescence of the thirteen threads referred to by Antonacci hasn't been shown to exist and therefore can't be compared with the x-ray fluorescence test data from the shroud. I agree with that.