Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

Um, they looked at it. I challenge Jabba or anyone to look closely at any fabric that has been repaired using any method (including using threads from the original cloth, although Jabba rules that out as a possibility for affecting the dating) and NOT be able to detect the repair. I've seen absolutely miraculous repairs to garments. You'd never suspect the damage that had been fixed, until you look closely.

The methods, the materials, the different ages, they would all be visible to even a layman making a close examination. Add in the fact that they were experts using varying light sources and magnification---there's just no way.

Ward

[Olowkow]

Summary of the science and those objecting or approving to the science.
In case Jabba missed reading these facts somehow.

Quote:

In 1980, using electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction, McCrone found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); the electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone’s results and further proved the image was painted twice – once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.


In 1987, carbon dating at three prestigious laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO 2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see ‘Amount of Modern Biological Contaminant Required to Raise the Date of a 36 A.D. Shroud’). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.


Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.


Conclusion:
The “Shroud” is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.

[HighRiser]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

The way the experts found no repairs is that they went to university, learned enough about their field of research to earn scholarly degrees by being tested by other learned scholars, went to work in institutions that had need of their knowledge and skills, gained more knowledge and experience as their careers advanced, and eventually became well-enough respected in their fields to be asked by the Vatican to have a look-see at the Shroud of Turin and formally present their findings of their examinations.

I realize this is an appeal to authority, but what logical options are available?

[pakeha]

[quote=Jabba;9326124...2) no one was looking for that sort of thing -- they were basically looking for "patches," rather than "patching" (reweaving), FL would have dismissed any frontal suggestions of patching based upon the fact that there were no obvious indications of patching on the back, and she probably would have encouraged the others to do the same. ...[/QUOTE]

Do you have some reason to think FL was so incompetent and unprofessional?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...Despite the fact that we've demonstrated they were, and that experts in reweaving have stated that there is no known reweaving technique that will yeild a patch that can't be detected via careful examination.

You are relying on us forgetting the past arguments once again, Jabba.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it. ...

I'm interested in knowing why you imagine a repair can be invisible.

[Akri]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

They looked at the cloth. That's pretty much all that would be necessary to reveal the repairing. (not that they didn't do other stuff as well, but visual inspection is sufficient to reveal any patching/reweaving, since those cannot be done invisibly).

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

Just as soon as you point out specifically what was allegedly done to invisibly repair the fabric. Let's not forget where the burden of proof lies, you mendacious fellow.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

Mr. Savage:

Multiple experts examined the cloth, with naked eyes and under various magnfication. They took pictures of the cloth in multiple light sources. They looked at, and through, the cloth from both sides.

The best reweaving possible (the so-called "french reweave"), is still visible when held up to the light...and, of course, cannot change the date of the cloth because it is performed with original threads from the cloth itself...

Are you going to continue your libel that they missed the "invisible reweaving" because they wanted not to find it?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba

No.

What you want is an invisible repair or reweave which is magically only visible to you and any true believers, but not not visible to any expert.

In other words, what you want is magic.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by John Jones

Just as soon as you point out specifically what was allegedly done to invisibly repair the fabric. Let's not forget where the burden of proof lies, you mendacious fellow.

This is an important point. If an invisible patch is possible it must have been demonstrated elsewhere. You can't get by just saying it is possible - you have to show it. After all, if such a technique existed, it would not have been used just once in all of history.

Your claim, your burden. Where has this invisible patching been demonstrated?

/relurk

[Blue Mountain]

After seeing the pictures of some samples a few posts back, I was thinking it would be instructive to see photographs of an "invisible" re-weave. From both sides, with the light falling on it and the light shining through it.

If there's anything like that out there in the net, it would go a long way to seeing how well Jabba's re-weaving claims hold up to scrutiny. (Aside from the fact we can find no documentation of any such reweaving, nor any indication of why such a labour-intensive repair would be done on an insignificant part of the cloth.)

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by SezMe

This is an important point. If an invisible patch is possible it must have been demonstrated elsewhere. You can't get by just saying it is possible - you have to show it. After all, if such a technique existed, it would not have been used just once in all of history.

Your claim, your burden. Where has this invisible patching been demonstrated?

/relurk

Has it occurred to you that the TS has encoded and hitherto undiscovered 4D information? Important properties are revealed later rather than sooner (conveniently supportive of authenticity - natch).

[Filippo Lippi]

Evidence?

[meccanoman]

Am not sure whether your comment was addressed to this site newbie or not, Filippo. If it was, then a word of friendly advice. Next time you go in for a blogger's MOT, tell them to check out the sensitivity setting on your irony detector ... ;-)

[abaddon]

This isn't a blog.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by abaddon

This isn't a blog.

Oops. Maybe I should have said 'forum participant' - or some equally precise, albeit turgid descriptor. I see I shall need to watch my words more carefully in future, oh fellow free-wheeling forum participant.

[abaddon]

It's 'members'. Discussion boards have 'members'.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by abaddon

It's 'members'. Discussion boards have 'members'.

OK. As long as you understand one thing. Mine's bigger than yours.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

Next time you go in for a blogger's MOT, tell them to check out the sensitivity setting on your irony detector ... ;-)

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Mandatory UK roadworthiness test for vehicles. Intended to keep clapped out heaps of junk off the roads.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

OK. As long as you understand one thing. Mine's bigger than yours.

Two out of your four posts so far contained veiled insults.

ETA: And this is a total derail. Best not to pursue it any further.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Apols. UK term for the official annual check on brakes, lights, exhaust, suspension, etc. needed if one's vehicle is more than 2 years old, as in: "It's going in for its MOT". I shall try to avoid relapsing into local slang in future. Clearly my maiden comments have not been "spot on" thus far, and one can but hope you've been able to "suss out" my meaning. Oops. there I go again...

[Tomboy]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

After seeing the pictures of some samples a few posts back, I was thinking it would be instructive to see photographs of an "invisible" re-weave. From both sides, with the light falling on it and the light shining through it.

If there's anything like that out there in the net, it would go a long way to seeing how well Jabba's re-weaving claims hold up to scrutiny. (Aside from the fact we can find no documentation of any such reweaving, nor any indication of why such a labour-intensive repair would be done on an insignificant part of the cloth.)

I had the same thought, and did some searches, but best I've been able to find so far are these images from http://clothingrepairpittsburgh.com/.

Before:
http://clothingrepairpittsburgh.com/.../pic2large.jpg

After:
http://clothingrepairpittsburgh.com/.../pic1large.jpg

That's a large tear so I'm guessing that's the inweaving technique as opposed to French reweaving, but the distortion around the edges may be comparable to what you'd see with the former. I know from knitting that any time you change yarn, you need some overlap to hold the new in place. There are ways to make the join more subtle, but it's always visible if you look closely. It makes sense to me that the same would be true for weaving. I don't have any first hand knowledge of that, though, and all I know about it is what I read briefly while looking for images.

[Agatha]

Thank you for finding those, Tomboy. (Welcome to the forum, btw). The edges of the repaired area are clearly visible, and would be even if the repairer had managed to duplicate the exact weave pattern of the fabric.

I'm sure Jabba will be along presently to ignore those pictures completely and claim to be narrowing his focus by moving on to something else explain why ten years of inspection by textile experts could have missed something so blindingly obvious as a repair using an undetectable, unrepeatable, unreported method which was used by anonymous expert repairers on an unimportant edge of a cloth with a 14th century weave which has a documented history from the time around its manufacture.

[hugh farey]

A couple more interesting sites:
http://www.invisiblemending.co.uk/index.asp
and
http://tomofholland.com/2012/01/07/t...-tweed-jacket/
and
http://www.stoppage-art.com/metier.html
and the video at
http://www.withoutatrace.com/reweaving.html

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by hughfarey

A couple more interesting sites:
http://www.invisiblemending.co.uk/index.asp

"...near perfect repairs as humanly possible..."
"...the trailing ends of the threads are carefully removed..."

And, as has been stated in this thread before, the interstices between the standing threads and the rewoven threads will be visible. Th repair is biased toward the right side of the fabric; notice that the wrong side is not shown in the demo. On a lined sleeve, the wrong side of the fabric would never be seen, nor would the fabric be observed with light shining through it.

Originally Posted by hughfarey

and
http://tomofholland.com/2012/01/07/t...-tweed-jacket/

I would like to see the wrong side of the fabric. As has been said before, the areas where the loose ends of the added threads have been trimmed and ironed in will show up on the obverse, particularly if lit from behind.

Originally Posted by hughfarey

and
http://www.stoppage-art.com/metier.html
and the video at
http://www.withoutatrace.com/reweaving.html

...same set of objections.

Also,it is important to point out that these three sites are all using original threads from the original cloth. None of them would change the ¹⁴C date of the original cloth, because they are the original cloth. None of them consist of 40% or more new material.

[meccanoman]

What I have always found curious, Hugh, is why something so up-market as a herring bone twill should be used as a burial shroud, especially one that was apparently not washed free of "messy" disfiguring blood prior to interment. What makes it even more curious is that the herringbone weave is on the image-side of the linen, i.e. the side that would be out of view to the bereaved paying their last respects once the shroud was sewn up. (The opposite side of the Shroud's linen is not an attractive twill, but looks more like a simpler 2-over-1, at least in Jull's photographs, and is fully consistent with the reverse side of a recently modelled 3-over-1 twill -apols for the absence of links).

It's almost as if the Shroud had been intended from the word go as a display item - to be exhibited with image-imprint on the more attractive outside.

Why a 3-over-1 twill, made with fine threads? Why not something closer to a plain 1-over-1? Could it be that a medieval craftsman had been wanting to use linen as a kind of artist's canvas, one that would take a detailed impression, but who realized that a herring-bone weave presented a much flatter image-receptive surface, given that a 3-over-1 ioffers a more consistently plane surface than a "knobbly" 1-over-1 with lots of warp/weft hair-pin bends? Just a thought...

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

<major snippage>

apols for the absence of links

If you want to post links do it like this:

Quote:

www dot somewebpage dot com

As soon as someone sees it they will repost it as a full link.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by abaddon

If you want to post links do it like this:



As soon as someone sees it they will repost it as a full link.

Hello again Abaddon. The reason for not inserting external URL links (which take my word I have to hand) is that the site's advice notes that accompany registration state they will not be accepted until a newbie has posted a certain number of comments, 15 as I recall - an anti-spam precaution. This is comment no.7 - near the halfway mark for trustie status. Bear with me.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

Hello again Abaddon. The reason for not inserting external URL links (which take my word I have to hand) is that the site's advice notes that accompany registration state they will not be accepted until a newbie has posted a certain number of comments, 15 as I recall - an anti-spam precaution. This is comment no.7 - near the halfway mark for trustie status. Bear with me.

Yes, but if you post the link in the format that Abaddon suggested, then someone else will complete the URL for you.

The anti-spam works against bots, it's not a rule to prevent real people posting relevant links.

[Agatha]

That is why abaddon advised you to post them broken, so that non-newbies will post the correct link. If you posted a broken link to www dot refermywebsiteforcash dot com, rest assured we won't fix it but report it instead. Links that are germane to the conversation are fine for newbies to post, broken as explained.

ETA: Welcome to the forum.

[hugh farey]

Herringbone, or plain twill for that matter, is weird stuff. It ought to look much the same on both sides, only with the weft threads prominent on one side and the warp threads prominent on the other. What actually happens, as you said, and as the Schwortz photos show (and a quick look at a modern twill will confirm) is that one side looks ribbed and fairly clearly 3-1, and the other looks much flatter and more like 1-1. Only by pulling a thread out can you see that the 1-1 is an illusion. I dare say the ribbed side was an obviously more expensive side to look at, but for flatness for painting, the other side looks more even to me. Check the Schwortz photos.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Yes, but if you post the link in the format that Abaddon suggested, then someone else will complete the URL for you.

The anti-spam works against bots, it's not a rule to prevent real people posting relevant links.

I can see how CB might think that was 'gaming' the MA to get around the restriction.

It's perfectly fine as long as the links are not inappropriate and/or spam.
Just another friendly service provided at JREF.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by Agatha

That is why abaddon advised you to post them broken, so that non-newbies will post the correct link. If you posted a broken link to www dot refermywebsiteforcash dot com, rest assured we won't fix it but report it instead. Links that are germane to the conversation are fine for newbies to post, broken as explained.

ETA: Welcome to the forum.

I did as suggested, substituting dot for "." and still got the message - "no URLs just yet"! And I lost my comment! (Should have saved). I'll see if I can post the link in fragments, separated by lots of "notspam", and see if it appears. Explanation will have to wait (fatigue/profound sense of loss etc)

(notspam) http (notspam) ://(notspam) shroudstory (dot) notspamcom/2011/01/10/more-on-was-the-sample-used-in-the-jull-paper-not-from-the-shroud-of-turin/

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

I did as suggested, substituting dot for "." and still got the message - "no URLs just yet"! And I lost my comment! (Should have saved). I'll see if I can post the link in fragments, separated by lots of "notspam", and see if it appears. Explanation will have to wait (fatigue/profound sense of loss etc)

And voila:

http://shroudstory.com/2011/01/10/mo...roud-of-turin/

It was the

Quote:

http://

that did you in.

Quote:

shroudstory (dot) com/2011/01/10/more-on-was-the-sample-used-in-the-jull-paper-not-from-the-shroud-of-turin/

would have worked.

[Agatha]

http://shroudstory.com/2011/01/10/mo...roud-of-turin/

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And voila:

http://shroudstory.com/2011/01/10/mo...roud-of-turin/

It was the that did you in.

would have worked.

Dang. Now I have to read it.

[meccanoman]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And voila:

http://shroudstory.com/2011/01/10/mo...roud-of-turin/

It was the that did you in.

would have worked.

OK, but these are precious minutes for me: stop trying to rush me through the magic and innocence of newbiehood.

[abaddon]

OK read it.

Looks to me as though Dan, despite being a believer in authenticity, is happy to admit that the 3 over one weaving is a total non-issue. I may not agree with him about the authenticity of the shroud, but I do like his honesty on this. Evidence presented, issue removed from the table. Bravo.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Colin Berry

OK, but these are precious minutes for me: stop trying to rush me through the magic and innocence of newbiehood.

It's a shark pool, and you just got thrown in the deep end. LOL.

ETA: Seriously, you can pretty much ask anything here, and get straight answers, along with a few jokey ones sometimes. There is a bit of a parody meme going on in some areas of the site.

[meccanoman]

I've only just caught up with Dawkins on those meme thingys. Now I have to cope with 'parody memes'. Life's simply not fair on us gnubies.