Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Nothing I couldn't tolerate except that they simultaneously claim that the side following the science is just as biased.

I agree, the reliance on the 'I know you are, but what am I?' defence does wear thin.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is how I see the results of our discussion re the trace element issue so far. I will place it on my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=158.
- If any of you have a different take, let me know, and I’ll publish it also – unless you don’t want me to.

1. Trace Elements -- The PA (pro-authenticity) version:
- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.
- Later, Rogers insists that other chemical evidence proves that the Raes sample and the rest of the Shroud are NOT of the same cloth.
- Rogers never explains or resolves that apparent contradiction…
- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT THE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.

--- Jabba

Sorry, but this is extremely childish. People here are not interested in your shroud believers website, and you should not be trying to get anyone here to endorse whatever you decide to write there. Write whatever you want, but that won’t be the responsibility of anyone here.

Also, it is not valid to say that you " HOLD OUT THE POSSIBILITY .... " unless you report the error levels for those STURP X-ray measurements. What are the error levels for their results?

Even if the later summary from Shwalbe and Rogers gave any error limits, those errors would not believable anyway because that work has not ever been properly published in any real science journal.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT THE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.

There is a tactic in pseudoscience to abuse the fact that science is inherently cautious as a sign that it's not sure. It amounts to "You're ONLY 99.999999995% certain? So you're not sure, then, right?" It'd be trivial to find a scientist willing to admit that there's the possibility of random statistical flukes working that way. That said, the odds of that happening are akin to the odds of everyone in the USA being struck by lightning at the same time--it's just this side of impossible, but straddling the line. And it's entirely unreasonable to try to argue that because the certainty isn't 100% it's therefore wrong, which is what you're trying to do.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The following is how I see the results of our discussion re the trace element issue so far. I will place it on my website at http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=158.
- If any of you have a different take, let me know, and I’ll publish it also – unless you don’t want me to.

1. Trace Elements -- The PA (pro-authenticity) version:
- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.
- Later, Rogers insists that other chemical evidence proves that the Raes sample and the rest of the Shroud are NOT of the same cloth.
- Rogers never explains or resolves that apparent contradiction…
- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT THE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.

--- Jabba

Again I think I must become schizo or manic with age, I want to cry and to laugh insanely at the same time.

Jabba you could as well have written "the PA side rejects evidence and decide to wallow in belief". That is essentially what you wrote in a nutshell.

[Jabba]

- How about this revision?

Sub-Debates

2. Carbon Dating/ Invisible re-weave/ rough homogeneity of the trace elements.
2.1. The PA (pro-authenticity) version of the current state of this sub-debate:
- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.
- Later, Rogers insists that other chemical evidence proves that the Raes sample and the rest of the Shroud are NOT of the same cloth.
- Rogers never explains or resolves that apparent contradiction…
- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.
- The CA (con-authenticity) side BELIEVES SUCH TO BE A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE POSSIBILITY, and that the PA side is simply grasping at illusionary straws. The CA side believes that the trace element issue, as well as the patch issue itself, is 99.99...% closed at this point, and that the PA side simply rejects the evidence and prefers to wallow in religious belief instead.
2.2. The CA version of the current state of this sub-debate...
(Fill in the blank.)

- Note that I've snuck in the word "Rough" in the Title.
- Also note that what I've presented is what I think that each side is saying. In other words, one part of my summary is my version of your position. If you don't like my version of this sub-debate, now's the time to present your own version.
- Note that this being an on-going debate, you can change your version any time you wish.

- I can hear the applause already!

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- How about this revision?

<waffle>

You remind me of something we used to say about newly-graduated engineering officers - they could tell you the square root of a jam jar but couldn't get the lid off.

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I'd like to send your post (#2357) giving the arguments against "invisible re-weaving" to the Dan Porter blog (http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/). Do I have your permission?
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

You remind me of something we used to say about newly-graduated engineering officers - they could tell you the square root of a jam jar but couldn't get the lid off.

Akhenan,
- Flying the Aussies into combat in Vietnam was a mixed bag -- they smelled like dead fish, but fought like hell.
--- Jabba

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

-
- I can hear the applause already!

--- Jabba

one mans applause is another mans firing squad

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- How about this revision?

Sub-Debates

2. Carbon Dating/ Invisible re-weave/ rough homogeneity of the trace elements.
2.1. The PA (pro-authenticity) version of the current state of this sub-debate:
- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.
- Later, Rogers insists that other chemical evidence proves that the Raes sample and the rest of the Shroud are NOT of the same cloth.
- Rogers never explains or resolves that apparent contradiction…
- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.
- The CA (con-authenticity) side BELIEVES SUCH TO BE A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE POSSIBILITY, and that the PA side is simply grasping at illusionary straws. The CA side believes that the trace element issue, as well as the patch issue itself, is 99.99...% closed at this point, and that the PA side simply rejects the evidence and prefers to wallow in religious belief instead.
2.2. The CA version of the current state of this sub-debate...
(Fill in the blank.)

- Note that I've snuck in the word "Rough" in the Title.
- Also note that what I've presented is what I think that each side is saying. In other words, one part of my summary is my version of your position. If you don't like my version of this sub-debate, now's the time to present your own version.
- Note that this being an on-going debate, you can change your version any time you wish.

- I can hear the applause already!

--- Jabba

I'm not reading any more of this bizarre rubbish.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- I'd like to send your post (#2357) giving the arguments against "invisible re-weaving" to the Dan Porter blog (http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/). Do I have your permission?
--- Jabba

Hi Jabba,
Please feel free to show the post to whoever you would like. My only request concerning the use of the post would be that it is quoted accurately.

Dave

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- How about this revision?

Sub-Debates

2. Carbon Dating/ Invisible re-weave/ rough homogeneity of the trace elements.
2.1. The PA (pro-authenticity) version of the current state of this sub-debate:
- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.
- Later, Rogers insists that other chemical evidence proves that the Raes sample and the rest of the Shroud are NOT of the same cloth.
- Rogers never explains or resolves that apparent contradiction…
- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.
- The CA (con-authenticity) side BELIEVES SUCH TO BE A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE POSSIBILITY, and that the PA side is simply grasping at illusionary straws. The CA side believes that the trace element issue, as well as the patch issue itself, is 99.99...% closed at this point, and that the PA side simply rejects the evidence and prefers to wallow in religious belief instead.
2.2. The CA version of the current state of this sub-debate...
(Fill in the blank.)

- Note that I've snuck in the word "Rough" in the Title.
- Also note that what I've presented is what I think that each side is saying. In other words, one part of my summary is my version of your position. If you don't like my version of this sub-debate, now's the time to present your own version.
- Note that this being an on-going debate, you can change your version any time you wish.

- I can hear the applause already!

--- Jabba

It may not be possible to accurately convey a pro-authenticy or con-authenticity consensus view for every point of the shroud debate.

In this case, I don't think X-ray fluorescence testing provides much probative value as to the possibility of an invisible patch. The results of the X-ray fluorescence testing of the 13 threads doesn't seem to be available and there is not any good evidence that it was even done. Even if it was done and results could be found for it, the provenance of the threads might be an issue.

The only issue that the available evidence goes to is the credibility and integrity of Rogers and even here the available evidence doesn't do much except suggest the possibility that Rogers was not openly revealing evidence that didn't support his claim and that suggests an ethical breech by him. But on the slim available evidence I don't believe there is enough to even conclude that.

ETA: I had written a more detailed post about this but I didn't post it. There is another reason to believe the X-ray fluorescence testing might not be useful for establishing the whether there was an invisible patch or not. Sample 19 of the X-ray fluorescence testing was the only one taken from a clean, non-image area of the shroud. The strontium level reported for that sample was substantially different than that reported for every other area of the shroud. It is not clear what to make of this. Were the strontium levels actually lower in the "pristine" cloth than in image areas? Was there an error made in this particular test? We don't know. But if one was trying to compare the strontium concentration of the Raes sample threads what strontium level would they be compared to? Since only one sample was done on a "pristine" area it is difficult to judge the significance of the result and that means that any comparison of X-ray fluorescence test results with the results reported by Morris/Schwalbe/Rogers could not produce clear results.

Another deficiency I noticed when I took a more detailed look at the X-ray fluorescence testing was that there were no samples taken of the backing cloth. This was an important oversight since testing of the backing by itself would have gone a long way to sort out the degree that the cloth backing was interfering with the test results.

To summarize: For a variety of reasons I believe the X-ray fluorescence test results are of no significance with regard to the issue of the possibility of an invisible patch on the shroud. My guess, is that a pro-authenticity advocate that was informed of all the facts that have been made available in this thread would agree also.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Hi Jabba,
Please feel free to show the post to whoever you would like. My only request concerning the use of the post would be that it is quoted accurately.

Dave

Dave,
- Thanks.
--- Rich (Jabba)

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Schwalbe and Rogers claim that the trace-element readings of the Raes sample and the greater Shroud are roughly the same. They seem to be saying, that the two sets of readings are close enough to pretty much assure that the two sets have been 'read' from the same cloth.

Do you understand the logic behind this conclusion? If not, there's no point in going any further with this.

Quote:

- The PA side accepts that this is significant evidence against the patch hypothesis, but still HOLDS OUT FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the small variance between the two sets of readings is actually large enough to suggest that it didn’t occur by chance, and the two sets were NOT read from the same cloth.

Based on what criteria? Is there any justification, or is it just "I don't believe you"? Given what I've seen of pro-1st century believers, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Quote:

- The CA (con-authenticity) side BELIEVES SUCH TO BE A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE POSSIBILITY, and that the PA side is simply grasping at illusionary straws. The CA side believes that the trace element issue, as well as the patch issue itself, is 99.99...% closed at this point, and that the PA side simply rejects the evidence and prefers to wallow in religious belief instead.

If there's no significant difference between the two samples you cannot reasonably say they're different without pretty strong evidence to the contrary (like, an unbroken chain of custody, that sort of "pretty strong evidence"). What "no statistically significant difference" means is that by modern methods, it is impossible to differentiate between the samples using these methods. Which means that what YOU'RE saying is that there's either an alternative method (thus far not proposed) by which you can differentiate between them, or that you have some method of differentiating between them that modern scientists who do this for a living do not. Which is it? And please describe this stuff.

Quote:

- Note that I've snuck in the word "Rough" in the Title.

Your sneaky insertions have been previously noted, and were not unnoticed this time either.

Quote:

- Also note that what I've presented is what I think that each side is saying. In other words, one part of my summary is my version of your position. If you don't like my version of this sub-debate, now's the time to present your own version.

You're still playing Law and Order: Jerusalem. You don't get to limit time for cross-examination. Every post is open to re-evaluation and re-examination at any time. That's how scientific discussion works.

[pakeha]

I notice Jabba has left out the fact that there is no proof whatsoever of the provenance of the threads Rogers tested in his kitchen.
Dinwar rightly presses this point but Jabba seems to ignore it completely in the summing up.

We're still waiting for some reason to imagine there is an invisible weave in the TS. It seems incredible Jabba would think the presence of such a patch would have escaped notice in the 2002 restoration of the TS.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by pakeha

I notice Jabba has left out the fact that there is no proof whatsoever of the provenance of the threads Rogers tested in his kitchen.
Dinwar rightly presses this point but Jabba seems to ignore it completely in the summing up.

We're still waiting for some reason to imagine there is an invisible weave in the TS. It seems incredible Jabba would think the presence of such a patch would have escaped notice in the 2002 restoration of the TS.

[pakeha]

^
A wise man, patron saint of all cougars!
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdo...cs/51-fra.html

[Akhenaten]

^
Wise indeed. Cougars FTW.

Mind you, I have a feeling number 8 might be a later insertion, so to speak.

[Jabba]

- I've been having trouble with my emails -- and for now, my address is jabba12309@yahoo.com.

- Dan Porter published (http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/) Dave's first argument against the invisible patch theory (the trace element problem) yesterday morning (you'll need to scoll down a little). So far, the post has received only 3 responses (other than my own) and none of these has provided an effective explanation for the apparent similarity of the elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth...
- I also sent Dave's list of arguments against the patch theory, but I'm not sure that Dan ever received it.
- I'll be working on these problems.

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I've been having trouble with my emails -- and for now, my address is jabba12309@yahoo.com.

I'm sure your inbox will be filling steadily even as I type this.

Or not.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Dan Porter published (http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/) Dave's first argument against the invisible patch theory (the trace element problem) yesterday morning (you'll need to scoll down a little).

Gotta love this description of your experience here.

Quote:

Anyway, of my 60 or so opponents over there, I’ve finally run into a friendly and rational one.

How to win friends and influence people, eh?

Originally Posted by Jabba

So far, the post has received only 3 responses (other than my own) and none of these has provided an effective explanation for the apparent similarity of the elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth...

You've had "60 or so opponents" here explain that the most "effective" explanation for the "apparent" similarity is that they're both part of the same cloth.

How many times will you need the same thing explained before you start the think there might be something to it.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I also sent Dave's list of arguments against the patch theory, but I'm not sure that Dan ever received it.

Is there some reason for us to care?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'll be working on these problems.

The problem is that the shroud is only 700 years old. No matter how hard you work, it's going to stay that age.

[Jabba]

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.

You can plan what you like, but the Forum actually works on the basis that anyone is free to respond to any post they like.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 dating isn't a sub-issue. It's the bottom line.

And whether you demonstrate that the image is made of bluuuurd or not doesn't really make any difference - that it's on a 700-year-old piece of cloth is pretty much all that counts.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

It doesn't matter one way or the other.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

Jabba, have you had some sort of memory lapse?
Have you forgotten the extensive discussion you had on this very subject at the atheist forum?
Do you really want me to start posting up the exchanges you had here?

Quote:

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

Jabba, does this even matter?
Except, of course in the context of a medieval artifact.
Please don't imagine you can divert the discussion away from the 'invisible' patching and the C14 dating.
Please live up to your earlier promise to rebut the impossibility of the 'invisible' patching.

[Gao]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Here, I'll try to get back to my plan for debate, where each side gets their own "sub-thread" to control.
- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

--- Jabba

What relevance does this have to the central question about the authenticity of the shroud? Body or not, paint or blood, it's quite clearly a 14th century fake, and you have yet to present any evidence that indicates otherwise.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

... the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just ....

going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 is not a "sub" issue. It's the issue.

Why haven't you been able to find any independent science papers disputing the C14?

There's absolutely no point discussing any blood if the C14 dates are right. And if you think the C14 dates are wrong, then why have you failed to find any genuine independent scientist who has ever disputed those dates?

It's no use quoting shroud Christian believers who think the C14 dates are wrong. That's about as much use as asking Gerry Falwell and Kent Hovind if they have evidence for God.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

From the blog:

Quote:

- I appreciate your responses (very interesting information) and will salt them away for future use, but it’s starting to look like we don’t have a good answer to the apparent similarity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth — which seems like strong evidence against the invisible re-weave hypothesis.
- Any suggestions?

The obvious suggestion, which you keep ignoring, is that the reason why the two samples might be similar is because they're from the same cloth.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- As noted a long time ago, I wanted to explore the blood issue on my sub-thread, and I'll get back to that right now. I'm not dropping the carbon dating sub-issue, I'm just going to split my time between it and the blood sub-issue.

The C14 dating is not a sub-issue. It is the key issue. If the C14 dating is not wrong (and you have admitted it is not), and if there was no patch (and you have agreed that you cannot present any counter-arguments to the ones put to you here, nor can you present any argument for how such a thing could even be possible), then the Shroud is not as old as you would like to think it is. It's that simple.

Of course you want to talk about something else. Continuing to discuss the C14 dating can only lead you to the conclusion that you're wrong about the age of the Shroud, and that's something you don't want to conclude. But the facts are the facts, not what you, I, or anybody else would wish them to be. No amount of changing the subject is going to change the facts.

If you cannot prove that the C14 dating is wrong, or that the material tested wasn't a patch, then you have no case whatsoever. Anything else you say is utterly irrelevant.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pakeha,
- Show us exactly where something I said back in that atheist forum disagrees with what I'm saying over here. Show us exactly where and how I have been dis-ingenuous.
--- Jabba

You are being disingenuous in your argument because you know from prior exchanges in this thread that the C 14 evidence indicates that, even if it is real blood, it cannot be 1st century blood, and therefore the blood " evidence" is irrelevant to the S of T being the burial cloth of Christ.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Do any of you agree that the image on the Shroud was not painted -- that it had to be some sort of imprint of a dead body?

No. You've thus far presented no evidence that it was so.

Quote:

- I appreciate your responses (very interesting information) and will salt them away for future use, but it’s starting to look like we don’t have a good answer to the apparent similarity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the rest of the cloth — which seems like strong evidence against the invisible re-weave hypothesis.
- Any suggestions?

Yes: the cloth IS HOMOGENOUS. It was all weaved at the same time, and there IS NO PATCH.

[Loss Leader]

Twelve posts have been moved to AAH. Most were not rude, but simply off-topic. Please remember that this thread is for the discussion of the Shroud of Turin, not the discussion of the discussion of the Shroud. Posts regarding people's behavior on other forums or their motives for posting are not appropriate to the topic. Thank you all for your courtesies.

Posted By:Loss Leader

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If you cannot prove that the C14 dating is wrong, or that the material tested wasn't a patch, then you have no case whatsoever. Anything else you say is utterly irrelevant.

Well that's really the bottom line here.

It's why I suggested to Jabba 40 pages back, that he would do better to simply accept that the C14 dates are likely to be correct. Then if he want's to discuss other issues like blood he can do that ... but not on the basis that the C14 dates are somehow swept under the carpet of Christian faith.

Otherwise, if he wants to discuss blood as evidence of a 1st century burial cloth of Jesus, then people here are always going to stop him and bring him back to the fact that he is unable to find even one genuine independent research paper disputing the 13th-14th cent. date ... a date which coincidentally just happens to be the same as the date when the shroud is first known to have appeared.

[pakeha]

¡Qué va, abaddon!
There's plenty to discuss here- like how and why the TS is dated to the 14th century!

Off to re-read the OP again.

[pakeha]

What a trip.

Originally Posted by X

...
Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page ...

The rock in Manitoba was a real inspiration.
Moses petting a ram, Baby Jesus waving his little arm freed from the swaddling, Christ with a mandolin...
All with a soundtrack which will give me night-mares for years.
Years.

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I'm still looking around for a better answer to the trace element argument, but so far, I haven't found any...
- So far, the best I can do is the same as you suggested -- i.e., we can't seem to get the figures re the trace elements on the Raes sample, and consequently, don't really know how similar the readings between them and the larger Shroud are. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the similarity isn't all that unexpected -- even if one set is from 1st century Palestine and the other is from 14th century France.
- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely...

The issue many of us have with this statement is that this isn't a conclusion for you, it's an assumption. You do not appear to have arived at this due to consideration of the data--you started with this assumption, and are looking for ways to prove it. That "harder place" isn't the data, but your own willful refusal to accept that your assumption may be wrong.

Quote:

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

We've already disproven this. I've quoted several experts in exactly the types of patches you say would have been used, and they ALL say that these patches are good enough to make a garment look good, but are anything but invisible. No amount of help you can get will change that.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Miracle of the Shroud?

It seems more like making fun of the Shroud.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/bib...roud_turin.htm

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- I'm still looking around for a better answer to the trace element argument, but so far, I haven't found any...
- So far, the best I can do is the same as you suggested -- i.e., we can't seem to get the figures re the trace elements on the Raes sample, and consequently, don't really know how similar the readings between them and the larger Shroud are. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the similarity isn't all that unexpected -- even if one set is from 1st century Palestine and the other is from 14th century France.
- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

I'm a little surprised that you have spent this much effort on this piece of evidence. I have serious doubts about whether the X-ray fluorescence testing of the Raes threads was actually done. I think it is possible that Rogers/Schwalbe just assumed it had been done but they might have been wrong. Without a paper that documents the testing I don't see much to discuss.

There is an issue of credibility in that Rogers seems to be making conflicting claims in two different papers. I'm not too enthused about that line of argument. Rogers/Schwalbe could have made a mistake here and Rogers could be right some place else.

Of course, because I think this particular argument doesn't cut very strongly for or against authenticity doesn't mean that I have a similar view of other arguments related to the viability of the invisible patch theory. As I've mentioned previously, I believe that the case against the invisible patch theory is overwhelming. I just don't think this particular argument is particularly solid given that the evidence that underlies it has not been produced in this thread.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

... but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place"). ...

Could you explain the above, please?
It makes no sense at all.
What is the 'overall evidence' more compelling than the C14 dating?

And while we're waiting, from the OP's link:
http://www.missionoftheshroud.com/mi...ud/Shroud.html

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Do you have access to what the various experts did (before the cutting, during the dating process and/or during the conservation efforts of 2002) in order to conclude that there was no patch in the carbon dating sample?
--- Jabba

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- My next best answer is that a mistake was -- or mistakes were -- made in the trace element measurements.
- My next best answer is that the similarity is simply coincidental...

- I concede that none of these is very likely, but I keep pushing on because I perceive that the overall evidence regarding Shroud authenticity makes a 14th century (or earlier) forgery even more unlikely... I may be stuck behind a rock, but, I'm also stuck behind a harder place from the other direction -- which is why I'm trying to bring in the blood evidence (part of that "harder place").

- I will also be seeking some help as to how a patch wouldn't be recognized -- at least once -- by the various experts examining the Shroud over the last several decades...

--- Jabba

got something here which should help you find all the missing evidence
grab some of these
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50-Black-F...item29fd17de55

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by pakeha

...What is the 'overall evidence' more compelling than the C14 dating?...

Pakeha,
- There's a lot of evidence that conflicts with the results of the dating.
- I would start with the blood evidence. The blood evidence appears to require that the Shroud covered an actual crucified body that was crucified in a manner entirely consistent with Roman crucifixions of the first century and, in particular, with the crucifixion of the Biblical Jesus.
- I will try to start presenting the specific evidence as soon as I've done what I can towards explaining how a patch could have gotten past the experts.

--- Jabba