Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I can save you some time. If you can't think of an answer for Q2 off the top of your head, then the answer to Q2 is "no".
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
I can save you some time. If you can't think of an answer for Q2 off the top of your head, then the answer to Q2 is "no".
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Invisible Re-weaving
- The following comes from http://www.shroud.com/late08.htm, and was written by Barry Schwortz.
French Invisible Reweaving. Fact or Fiction?
One of the more interesting moments at the Ohio Shroud Conference was when Dr. Thibault Heimburger, Shroud Science Internet Group member and author of several articles on this website, presented conference chairman Joe Marino with a copy of a book he had found in a used bookstore in France. The book, titled, "The Frenway System of French Reweaving," was first written and published in 1951, apparently as a detailed instruction manual designed to preserve the highly specialized technique of French invisible reweaving, which was by then considered a dying artform. Labor intensive and requiring considerable training and skill, it was quickly being replaced by post WWII technology. The title page states that the book provides "detailed and complete instructions in the art of French invisible reweaving." It was first published in a private printing limited edition by The Fabricon Company of Chicago, Illinois and the last revision was done in 1962. I am adding the book to the Shroud Booklist page (listed with Fabricon as the author) for future reference although copies are probably difficult to find. Interestingly, Paul Maloney, noted Shroud scholar, archaeologist and member of the Shroud Science Internet Group, reported that he recently acquired a copy himself (and I believe he found it online).
- The following is the front cover.
http://www.shroud.com/images/reweavingbookcoversmx.jpg
- I'll be seeing if I can find anything more about it.
--- Jabba
Paladin,
- The following comes from http://www.shroud.com/late08.htm, and was written by Barry Schwortz.
French Invisible Reweaving. Fact or Fiction?
One of the more interesting moments at the Ohio Shroud Conference was when Dr. Thibault Heimburger, Shroud Science Internet Group member and author of several articles on this website, presented conference chairman Joe Marino with a copy of a book he had found in a used bookstore in France. The book, titled, "The Frenway System of French Reweaving," was first written and published in 1951, apparently as a detailed instruction manual designed to preserve the highly specialized technique of French invisible reweaving, which was by then considered a dying artform. Labor intensive and requiring considerable training and skill, it was quickly being replaced by post WWII technology. The title page states that the book provides "detailed and complete instructions in the art of French invisible reweaving." It was first published in a private printing limited edition by The Fabricon Company of Chicago, Illinois and the last revision was done in 1962. I am adding the book to the Shroud Booklist page (listed with Fabricon as the author) for future reference although copies are probably difficult to find. Interestingly, Paul Maloney, noted Shroud scholar, archaeologist and member of the Shroud Science Internet Group, reported that he recently acquired a copy himself (and I believe he found it online).
- The following is the front cover.
http://www.shroud.com/images/reweavingbookcoversmx.jpg
- I'll be seeing if I can find anything more about it.
--- Jabba
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
I think this relates to what I mentioned back in post #537.
The C14 results produced a specific range, a confidence level, and a standard deviation. For the Shroud to be from the year 33 C.E. and the labs to be off by mere chance would involve the actual date being over a 150 standard deviations away from the reported date. My very cursory Googling does not produce any information on how to calculate a number that large.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
You want us to provide you with literature which proves the point that you want to make about something for which there is no evidence whatsoever? I think I speak for everybody posting in this thread other than you when I say that we believe that the reason there is no evidence whatsoever that an invisible repair exists is because it doesn't exist.
Jabba, does the re-weaving you mention include fabricating precise trace-chemical signitures? If not, we can assume that there was no weave, since the trace element analysis shows that there's no difference between the sample and the rest of the shroud.
Also, how does this technique work? Is it truly invisible--meaning it's invisible at the microscopic scale? Or is it merely very hard to identify? Being very hard to identify would be difficult enough, and sufficient in all but the most conspiracy-theory-laden circumstances.
Finally, it's not enough to demonstrate that there COULD BE a patch--that alone isn't sufficient to establish reasonable doubt. You must demonstrate that there WAS a patch. If you can't, given the fact that we have the trace-element analysis, it's still unreasonable to doubt the validity of the C14 dating.
Also, how does this technique work? Is it truly invisible--meaning it's invisible at the microscopic scale? Or is it merely very hard to identify? Being very hard to identify would be difficult enough, and sufficient in all but the most conspiracy-theory-laden circumstances.
Finally, it's not enough to demonstrate that there COULD BE a patch--that alone isn't sufficient to establish reasonable doubt. You must demonstrate that there WAS a patch. If you can't, given the fact that we have the trace-element analysis, it's still unreasonable to doubt the validity of the C14 dating.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I want to report one important comment I’ve read this summer in a French book published about the Shroud and who came from one of the best expert in ancient textile in the world today, Christophe Moulherat, from the Museum of Fabric in Lyon, France. Here’s what M. Moulherat had to say about the possibility that a repair can be invisible : “No, it’s always visible, because WE HAVE THE MEANS TO SEE IT. All is needed is to do an in-deep analysis. But to do that, you got to have access to the cloth and don’t observe it with the naked eye, because then, WE DON’T SEE NOTHING, OR ALMOST NOTHING. It needs microscopes.”
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/...ity-to-do-some-real-investigative-journalism/
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
And emperors, especially emperors.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
(My highlights)
Are you qualified to question their research? Can you, for example, as we have requested of you, state the amount of contamination needed to shift a C14 result by the necessary amount?
That claim is utterly uninteresting till such time as you can actually present such evidence.
So you claim there are faults in their analysis, but you have not read it? Cool!
However, they did perform such a testing.
No, I would not say you are stretching. 'Stretching' implies that you have some material to stretch, but you have none. What you are doing is pure and unadulterated fabulation.
WHAT special reveaving? There isn't any.
Whaaaat? You ask us to find the material you wish existed??
-
Jabba, what we have here is total wishful thinking. Somehow, for some reason, you want the shroud of Turin to be genuine, so you are desperately, and, I might add, woefully ineffectively, trying to wave away perfectly valid and broadly accepted scientific evidence that it is not. You are not even grasping as straws, because no straws exist; you are asking US to dig up literature that might suppurt your entirely fictive arguments.
Step back, and reconsider: I assume you are a Christian (otherwise this would make even less sense), and believe that Jesus Christ lived, died and was resurrected. Fine! That is your right. Ask yourself, however: Does that belief in any way hinge on the autheticy of the shroud of Turin? Would you loose your faith if the shroud is false? If not, forget about all this and find some more meaningful pursuit in your life (such as watching paint dry).
Hans
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
trace-chemistry
- I haven't been able to find the trace chemical analysis on the Shroud that you're referring to. Can you help me with that?
--- Jabba
Dinwar,
- I haven't been able to find the trace chemical analysis on the Shroud that you're referring to. Can you help me with that?
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
trace-chemistry
- Isn't trace chemical analysis what Rogers was doing when he claimed to find a chemical difference between the sample area and the greater Shroud?
- Also, "invisible reweaving" basically involves reconnecting a tear -- not using a patch to cover a hole. From http://easyandelegantlife.com/2009/02/celebrating-the-invisible-reweaving-returns-to-richmond/:
French or “invisible” reweaving is best for tears and holes up to 1/8″ in diameter, no larger. Using this method, individual threads are replaced and are woven back into the garment. It sounds simple. Like tying your own flies for fishing… . French reweaving almost always results in a near invisible repair.
- Finally, can't we actually see that the sample at least included a unique darkened section -- perhaps aging madder root dye?
--- Jabba
- And Dinwar,
- Isn't trace chemical analysis what Rogers was doing when he claimed to find a chemical difference between the sample area and the greater Shroud?
- Also, "invisible reweaving" basically involves reconnecting a tear -- not using a patch to cover a hole. From http://easyandelegantlife.com/2009/02/celebrating-the-invisible-reweaving-returns-to-richmond/:
French or “invisible” reweaving is best for tears and holes up to 1/8″ in diameter, no larger. Using this method, individual threads are replaced and are woven back into the garment. It sounds simple. Like tying your own flies for fishing… . French reweaving almost always results in a near invisible repair.
- Finally, can't we actually see that the sample at least included a unique darkened section -- perhaps aging madder root dye?
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dinwar,
- Re #1: Apparently (based upon the quote in my last post, and other references I've found), invisible reweaving is merely very hard to identify. But again, the sample area included darkened (encrusted?) fibers visible to the naked eye even, and Rogers at least claimed that he was able to detect chemical differences between the sample and the greater Shroud, as well as splicing within the sample.
- Re #2: So far, I can't understand why you say that. Demonstrating that there could be a patch, does establish some doubt that there wasn't. In other words, you can't prove that there isn't a patch -- and from something I understood you to say awhile back, if you can't prove it, you can't use it (something like that).
- But again, I disagree with that anyway -- in developing scientific arguments, the degree of probability of a sub-claim can be critical. To me, the real issue here is the degree of probability of the different sub-claims and counter claims -- and, put all together (including all the historical and other scientific evidence that supports an earlier date), there is more than just reasonable doubt that the C14 dating was valid.
- And finally, the word "patch" can be ambiguous and misleading. The proper meaning here is probably just the reconnection of a tear.
--- Jabba
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Faith
- I'm not a Christian, but I am a wannabe Christian, and would like to "believe in" Jesus. If I were convinced that the Shroud is authentic, I might be able to make the necessary "leap of faith." (I have a different interpretation of "faith" than do most people -- be they religious or otherwise. Faith is the result of being able to drop one's natural reductionistic thinking re the concept/story, of the particular religion, in favor of holistic thinking re that concept/story. I also assume that both types of thinking are valid.)
- But, for me at least, faith can't be blind. You guys don't think much of my effort to evaluate the evidence objectively -- but, that is what I'm trying to do.
- Obviously, I'm biased and that bias effects my judgment. But then, I assume that you are also biased -- only in the opposite direction.
- I also assume that you accept that you are also biased -- just not as biased as me. Is that correct?
- Jabba
Hans,
- I'm not a Christian, but I am a wannabe Christian, and would like to "believe in" Jesus. If I were convinced that the Shroud is authentic, I might be able to make the necessary "leap of faith." (I have a different interpretation of "faith" than do most people -- be they religious or otherwise. Faith is the result of being able to drop one's natural reductionistic thinking re the concept/story, of the particular religion, in favor of holistic thinking re that concept/story. I also assume that both types of thinking are valid.)
- But, for me at least, faith can't be blind. You guys don't think much of my effort to evaluate the evidence objectively -- but, that is what I'm trying to do.
- Obviously, I'm biased and that bias effects my judgment. But then, I assume that you are also biased -- only in the opposite direction.
- I also assume that you accept that you are also biased -- just not as biased as me. Is that correct?
- Jabba
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Near invisible means you can see it if you look.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
RULE #1.
When including a link in an argument, you should read the and understand the citation.
When including a link in an argument, you should read the and understand the citation.
French reweaving involves taking threads from an unobtrusive part of the garment and using it on a visible part of the garment. If they did French reweaving - it would not change the C14 dating.
Also, French reweaving is invisible only from one side. Both sides of the Shroud corner were carefully examined.
But in any case, thanks for strengthening the case that there is no reason to doubt the C14 dating.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
That sounds weird, but to each his own.
Then you are failing miserably. Actually, that is very obviously NOT what you are doing, quite the opposite: You are trying very hard to support a different conclusion than the one that follws from the available evidence.
Why you are doing this, if you are really not a believer, I cannot understand.
Everybody is biased, the problem is if your bias makes you disregard facts. My bias would not prevent me from accepting that the shroud was from the first century, if evidence indicated that. This would not, of course, make me conclude that it belonged to Jesus, unless proper evidence for that was presented.
Hans
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
I can describe the conditions that would cause me to change my mind. Can you describe the conditions which would change your mind?
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
Jabba said:
That is not necessary, my brother is a (sports)fashion designer (you have seen his work at some olympics and world chamionships) and he is considered an expert in weaves and textiles.
He has emailed a couple of high-tech manufacturers for me, but says himself that because of tensionstresses in the yarn it is nigh-on impossible to remake exact strands of yarn that exhibit the same characteristics, especially if the fabric is made from the same material.
You would always see, microscopically at least, but with the naked eye as well, a difference in curling if the strands are separated. This is because of the breakdown in some organic molecules over time.
He tells me that without a c14 it should be plain, even to an observant layman, that there is a difference. Even more so after a few hundred years of ageing; no matter how crafty it was reweaved, the ageing should have made a difference. If there was no such difference, it simply could not have been patched.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Does this mean you still haven't found any reason to doubt the C14 dating?
'Question' and 'claim' rather 'demonstrate'?
And this from someone who has a website dedicated to the Shroud of Turin?
Try reading through the thread and following the many interesting links provided.
I did and am grateful to have learnt much from the patient dedication of the posters here.
Selective memory, much?
Does the phrase 'chain of custody' ring a bell?
It's difficult to understand why Rogers' analysis is still taken seriously by Jabba.
'Chain of custody', remember?
Something like that?
Is this the sort of reasoning Jabba's judge 'friend' would allow in his courtroom?
And when are we going to see this evidence?
Hum. The Vatican is convinced the Shroud is a medieval artefact. Yet manages to soldier on, somehow.
Nice one.
Oddly enough, Jabba doesn't dispute the dating of the control samples, just the TS sample.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Your protests are falling on deaf ears. Jabba is convinced that the Vatican knows it is authentic and it is only a matter of time before the Pope publicly announces it.
- Status