Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Lucian]

This is the most miraculously frustrating thread. Another very long post that doesn't in any way move the discussion forward. Jabba, could you please state concisely your objections to the carbon 14 dating, along with your supporting evidence? Please do so without repeating irrelevant points verbatim. And if you could minimize the bulleted and numbered lists, that would be swell.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

This seems to me “DIRECT” evidence that there is BLOOD on the Shroud, “INDIRECT” evidence (“supportive” evidence, “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” evidence?) that the Shroud was a burial cloth – and, VERY indirect evidence that the Shroud was the burial cloth of the Biblical Jesus.

You've not read anything I wrote, have you? This is an improper way to classify "evidence" in science. You're still playing lawyer, at the expense of actually getting to the truth of the matter.

Fine. I move that this evidence be dismissed until such time as proper provenance be presented by Jabba, his associates, or his affiliates. Provenance may be established by either a signed chain of custody, video recordings documenting sampling procedures, other commonly accepted means, or reference to material containing such commonly accepted means of establishing an unbroken chain of custody. I further move that ALL data lacking in properly established provenance be dismissed, as per standard scientific procedures and the regulations governing sampling protocols previously referenced in this thread.

Quote:

- For now, I’ll go back to trying to answer Ladewig’s last objection -- unless Dinwar has a more preferred direction.

The highlighted part is disingenuous. I refer you to my previous post on the subject. Specifically:

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is my one and only response to this class of requests (including, but not limited to, requests for which order to respond to questions and which questions to respond to). Any and all attempts to respond with similar requests by you, Jabba, or any representative, affiliate, or associate, will be considered nothing more than evasion and attempts to further avoid actually answering the questions posed to you.

Your latest request can be interpreted in no other way than as continued attempts at obfuscation and redirection. Moreover, they show a fundamental lack of honesty on your part--either you have read what I wrote and are being intentionally obtuse, or you haven't read what I wrote and therefore are being dishonest when you pretend to be engaging in a discussion.

Originally Posted by Jabba

3. For now, personally, I would define “scientific evidence” as information
3.1. Relevant to a particular hypothesis being addressed, and
3.2. Gathered while using the scientific method.

3.2 is nothing more than a wiggle phrase intended to dismiss anything that you don't like because it doesn't fit The Scientific Method. In science it is widely understood that no such strictly regulated methodology exists.

This is why you CANNOT use courtroom tactics to establish scientific truths--the requirements for establishing fact are wildly different. Courtrooms rely on semantics tactics and procedural issues, while scientific data relies on independently reproducible data. The methods are INCOMPATIBLE.

This entire definition is also nothing more than an attempt to dismiss data you don't like. Anything you don't like is going to be thrown out by you because it doesn't fit the definition of "scientific evidence". That's not how it works. If it's reproducible by an independent lab, it's valid data (the tricky part is, as always, interpretation).

Seriously, Jabba, this type of garbage wouldn't fly at traffic court. If I wrote an EIS this poorly I'd be sacked. And again, we're discussing an ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND, which is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a LEGAL one.

[Jabba]

Dinwar,
- If I'm being obtuse, it isn't done consciously. If I'm being obtuse, it's just how I am...
- Can you try again to tell me what you would like me to address? If I understand what you're proposing, I will try to comply. If I don't understand, I will ask for help. If you believe that I'm just being obtuse, perhaps someone else can help.
--- Jabba

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Can you try again to tell me what you would like me to address?

I already did:

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I do not care what order you answer my questions in. My preference is for you to answer them all, rather than intentionally inhibiting discussion via the manner you are currently employing (insisting on treating every statement, and in some cases every clause and/or phrase, of a response to your posts as an individual question requiring extensive background research). My questions fall into a small number of broad categories, and therefore multiple questions can be dealt with at once merely by understanding the reasoning behind the questions and responding, not to the specific questions, but rather to the reasons behind the questions. These posts are not a legal document, nor do they imply any legal obligations on any party involved in this discussion, and therefore approaching them as a legal document as you have been doing is an inappropriate method for addressing the issues raised in this thread.

Originally Posted by Jabba

If you believe that I'm just being obtuse, perhaps someone else can help.

I believe you're not reading what we write. What's the point of talking to you if you're not going to even listen?

[pakeha]

-

Originally Posted by Jabba

Now, on to the carbon dating.
- If you recall, back in #896 – while discussing the carbon dating -- I said the following: ....

This is a simple repost of an earlier post.
What on earth did you think you would accomplish by reposting this?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Anyway, note that I had been trying to address the carbon dating issue before I was redirected to scientific evidence. ...

That is your entire answer?
To repost a previous answer garnished with an intro?

Let us know when you're ready to tackle the C14 dating.
Anyway, about that trade agreement between Philip the Fair and Henry VII...

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

...Fine. I move that this evidence be dismissed until such time as proper provenance be presented by Jabba, his associates, or his affiliates. Provenance may be established by either a signed chain of custody, video recordings documenting sampling procedures, other commonly accepted means, or reference to material containing such commonly accepted means of establishing an unbroken chain of custody. I further move that ALL data lacking in properly established provenance be dismissed, as per standard scientific procedures and the regulations governing sampling protocols previously referenced in this thread...

Dinwar,
- I think that I just realized one of my problems... I hadn't really understood the meaning of "provenance."
- Are you asking me to provide my evidence that the Shroud existed before 1260?
- If not, are you asking for 1) the claimed histories (there being more than one) of the Shroud, and 2) the evidence for those histories being correct (or incorrect)?
- If neither of these is correct, please try to explain again.
--- Jabba

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- If I'm being obtuse, it isn't done consciously. If I'm being obtuse, it's just how I am...
- Can you try again to tell me what you would like me to address? If I understand what you're proposing, I will try to comply. If I don't understand, I will ask for help. If you believe that I'm just being obtuse, perhaps someone else can help.
--- Jabba

Why is it that you can remember what people wrote when it suits you to do so enough to provide an exact post number for who said what when, yet can't remember a simple question asked of you in the post you're actually replying to?

[wollery]

It's like pulling teeth out of the blood that you just squeezed out of a stone.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- I think that I just realized one of my problems... I hadn't really understood the meaning of "provenance."
- Are you asking me to provide my evidence that the Shroud existed before 1260?
- If not, are you asking for 1) the claimed histories (there being more than one) of the Shroud, and 2) the evidence for those histories being correct (or incorrect)?
- If neither of these is correct, please try to explain again.
--- Jabba

As you're so good at finding old posts, why don't you go back over the thread to where it has already been explained to you at length and in detail? To do otherwise would imply that you've been ignoring anything you didn't want to hear and would be extremely insulting to those who have put so much effort in to replying to you kindly, patiently and politely, going out of their way to provide you with a wealth of informed, relevant and in-depth information.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

Dinwar,
- I think that I just realized one of my problems... I hadn't really understood the meaning of "provenance."
- Are you asking me to provide my evidence that the Shroud existed before 1260?

Well, at least you've admitted this.

There are several issues with your argument related to provenance. First and foremost, yes, for your argument to be real you have to prove that the shroud existed prior to 1260. In fact, you have to prove that the shroud is from the time when Jesus (Jeshua bi Yoseph, if I got that right) died. We'll leave aside the issue of whether such a person was actually crucified--that's a major problem you'll have, but it's not related to provenance. If you are unable to show that the shroud is that old, AT BEST you can argue that it's an odd historical artifact--which is what I'm saying it is anyway, so your argument fails.

As for the fibers analyzed via organic chemistry, you have to prove that they actually came from the shroud. Not merely get someone's say-so, but demonstrate that they actually DID in fact come from the shroud itself. This is most typically done via an unbroken chain of custody, including signatures of everyone who had custody of those fibers at any time. If you can't get that, documentation from the owners of the shroud that the researcher did in fact take the fibers off the shroud via the methods he says he used, AND (not or, but and) some documentation that the other scientist involved received those fibers (typically done via requiring a signature upon receipt of the package), is necessary. As a last-ditch effort you can establish provenance by proving that the chemistry is the same between the fibers and the shroud--typically done via stable isotopic ratios, the amount of certain metals (they're easy to detect), and other means that do not rely upon organic chemistry or radioactive isotopes (too many variables; some researchers would accept radioactive isotopes, but stable isotopic data has been provided in this thread and it would allow us to directly compare all samples).

Without a well-established chain of custody or provenance, the fibers analyzed via organic chemistry are meaningless, even if they were from the shroud. If you can't establish provenance you by definition can't prove they were from the shroud and therefore they are irrelevant to this discussion.

You also need to establish that the fibers were maintained in proper conditions (for soil and groundwater samples, that means 4 degrees C, but these samples and this method of analysis may have different requirements). If that's violated the samples are meaningless. This is standard procedure. Friday I dropped off some groundwater samples, and the first thing that the lab did was test the temperature. If it's >4C, they toss the sample. Again, the more important the samples the tighter, not looser, the controls.

Finally, the radiocarbon samples taken from the shroud have some of the tightest controls on provenance that I've ever encountered. This includes video evidence of the samples being taken, who they were given to, and the conditions of delivery. These were well-established and highly reputable labs, and the Vatican has agreed that their analysis is valid. Stable element chemistry also demonstrates that the material sampled is the same as the shroud material. This is all evidence presented up-thread. Thus, the provenance of the samples and the conditions the samples encountered has been well-established. In order for your arguments to be correct, you need to prove--not try to cast doubt on, but PROVE--that there is some as-yet unseen flaw in the chain of custody, the sample conditions, or similar. And no, speculations about unproven and by definition untestable fabric repair methods that have never been encountered in any other cloth of any age doesn't count as proof. That's mere speculation.

If you look up-thread you'll notice that I've explained all of this before. I didn't throw out the word "provenance" without providing a definition. Again, I can only conclude that you're not actually reading the responses to your posts.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by pakeha

-

This is a simple repost of an earlier post.
What on earth did you think you would accomplish by reposting this?




That is your entire answer?
To repost a previous answer garnished with an intro?

Let us know when you're ready to tackle the C14 dating.
Anyway, about that trade agreement between Philip the Fair and Henry VII...

Pakeha,
- I was trying to address two issues in that one post. Maybe, I gave short shrift to the carbon dating.
- But I was taking a long time anyway, I was trying to show that I was addressing the dating issue (when no one allowed that I was) before being redirected to the scientific evidence, and finally, I pointed out that my next step would be to answer Ladewig's question about the dating so long as I didn't get redirected.
--- Jabba

[pakeha]

Thanks for an informative and instructive message, Dinwar.
I'm grateful you have taken the trouble to join this thread because your expertise has been invaluable to my own understanding of just why the TS is a medieval artifact.


Could let me know if I'm correct in saying that to claim the provenance of the fibers analyzed via organic chemistry, one must demonstrate their source as being the TS.
Without that demonstration, there is no point in discussing the results of those tests, since the thread could have been taken from any one of a number of sources, not the TS in particular.

In addition, one must be able to demonstrate those threads were kept under the appropriate conditions during the entire time from their removal of the TS to the point of their analysis.

I'm this writing out so that I can be sure I understand the real issue being discussed here.
I hope Jabba will focus on the C14 dating of the cloth, unless he can demonstrate there is reason to doubt it.

[Jabba]

- I do tend to skim your posts when they're long, and in so doing, I have missed some critical points. But keep in mind that
1) I'm 69 yrs old with at least the average memory problems.
2) I'm a slow reader.
3) There's a whole lot of reading to do on this thread.
4) Overall, there must be fifty of you to the one of me.
5) A lot of what you say takes a lot of time to understand.
6) I only have so much time for fun.
--- Jabba

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

-
- Now, on to the carbon dating.

- If you recall, back in #896 – while discussing the carbon dating -- I said the following:
1. In regard to doubting rogers' honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was wrong in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to doubt his honesty regarding them. It's clearly possible that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.

It’s been explained to you numerous times that Rogers honesty or dishonesty is not actually a relevant issue here. Stop repeatedly bringing it up as if you had never been told that.

2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

Completely untrue. The fact is that the C14 is by far the most rigorous test ever applied to the shroud. In fact it’s the only genuine independent modern scientific test.

And, afaik even the Vatican has repeatedly accepted in print that the C14 tests themselves were most definitely rigorous, absolutely accurate, and statistically perfectly correct.


3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.


Rogers was a member the shroud believers group STURP. He was by no means a genuinely independent investigator. He was also a very minor chemist, without even a PhD to his name, he was long retired, and was doing undergraduate level wet chemistry tests in his own home kitchen!

We have discussed Rogers findings to death, and explained in detail why his claims were wrong. That is all explained in Antonacci’s article, as you well know, and that has been confirmed repeatedly in print by no less than the Vatican’s own chief science advisor professor Ghiberti and by the Vatican’s own chief ancient textile expert Dr Flury-Lemberg, both of whom had the advantage of personally spending one whole month examining the shroud in detail from the reverse side with the backing cloth removed for the first time in 500 years … that was an evidentiary advantage which was not available to Rogers, who never saw the shroud at all on either that occasion, or on the occasion when the C14 sample was cut, or at any time since 1988 …

… Rogers had never seen either the sample pieces that were delivered to any of the C14 labs, nor ever seen the reverse side of the shroud where the C14 sample was cut. But Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg did see and examine all of that in detail. And they have repeatedly said on behalf of the Vatican itself, that they were amazed at how Rogers had made such a huge and obvious mistake as to ever claim that the area included a hypothetical and apparently impossible re-weave of which there was never any trace whatsoever, not even under thousands of high magnification microscopic photographs.


4. In 2005, john l. Brown of the georgia institute of technology confirmed rogers’ findings.

Where is that published please?

Make sure it’s in a real science research journal, or else don’t bother to keep wasting our time with more religious propaganda.


5. In 2008, a group from the los alamos national laboratories also confirmed rogers’ findings.

Again - where is that published please? And again - make absolutely sure it’s in a real science research journal, or else don’t bother to keep wasting our time with more religious propaganda.



6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.

Which other “scientific evidence” is that? The only genuine scientific test which has ever been published to date the shroud is the C14 paper in Nature in 1989.

Afaik, there are no other genuinely published real science papers on the shroud.

If you claim any other genuine independent scientific paper then quote it here … and yet again - be absolutely sure it’s from a genuine science research journal, and not the same old religious propaganda crap published in children’s comics.


7. Historical evidence does also.

What “historical evidence”? How can any such historical evidence be directly contradicting the accuracy of the C14 tests.

8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

Of course it’s not foolproof. Would you like to tell us anything that is “foolproof” in this universe?

- Since we have already sort of agreed to disagree regarding #1, I’ll move on to #2 – The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.

The Vatican refuse to allow the C14 scientists to make tests amongst more than 3 labs, and refused to cut a sample larger than 7cm from one sample area.

That’s not the fault of the scientists. That was a religious decision by the Vatican as owners of the shroud.

2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.

Yes, and so? See my above reply to 2.1.

2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.

Yes, we have covered that - it was the Vatican as owners of the shroud that refused to cut off more than one 7cm strip from one single place on the edge of the shroud.

2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire shroud).

They were NOT “supposed to be taken from different areas of the cloth”. That was always a decision entirely at the discretion of the Vatican as owners of the shroud. That is a Vatican religious decision … it was not the decision of any of the C14 scientists.

2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.

What was the other dating process different to C14?

Who except the Vatican could allow that anyway?

2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (madame flury-lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).

Why does it matter if Flury Lemberg actual held the scissors?

Was she present when the sample was cut?

2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.

Afaik, all three C14 labs had representatives present when the C14 sample was actually cut. But in any case the C14 labs were also represented by the scientific advisor from the British Museum, Michael Tite, who was acting as the main coordinator for the C14 work


2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.

Again, that was the decision of the Vatican and was not the decision of any of the C14 scientists.


2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

Iirc -the three C14 labs were each given an additional cloth sample, the origin and date of which was not previously known to the three labs. Iirc - that sample was actually a 1st century AD cloth, and all three labs dated it correctly without previously knowing what it was. All three labs also used a medieval sample as a “blind” test, and again all the labs dated that correctly too. In addition, all three labs were of course calibrating their spectrometers with numerous others samples on a continuous basis, so all three were able to certify that their results were constantly accurate to a very high degree.

And nobody, not even the Vatican, has ever seriously disagreed with that.

In fact, afaik - the Vatican has repeatedly said in print that it does actually accept that the C14 tests were all rigorously and accurately done, and that the results were all statistically very accurate.

The Vatican is not actually disputing the C14 results.

And as we know from Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg, the Vatican is also totally dismissing Rogers claim that there was ever an “invisible re-weave”.


- I'll stop there for now, and let you present your questions, reservations and objections so far.



--- Jabba

See my comments in red above.

You are continually quoting completely disingenuous objections from shroud fanatic websites.

If you don’t have any genuine science research papers raising objections to the C14 then would you please be so kind as to do the honest thing and admit that!

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pakeha,
- I was trying to address two issues in that one post. Maybe, I gave short shrift to the carbon dating.
- But I was taking a long time anyway, I was trying to show that I was addressing the dating issue (when no one allowed that I was) before being redirected to the scientific evidence, and finally, I pointed out that my next step would be to answer Ladewig's question about the dating so long as I didn't get redirected.

I have the impression that in this case, scientific evidence= C14 dating.
Do you have any reason to think otherwise?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I do tend to skim your posts when they're long, and in so doing, I have missed some critical points. But keep in mind that
1) I'm 69 yrs old with at least the average memory problems.
2) I'm a slow reader.
3) There's a whole lot of reading to do on this thread.
4) Overall, there must be fifty of you to the one of me.
5) A lot of what you say takes a lot of time to understand.
6) I only have so much time for fun.

In so doing, you wind up ignoring a rather extensive amount of information and preventing any forward motion in this discussion. Archaeology is a complex science, and you need to pay attention to details in order to understand any aspect of it.

As for your specific points:

1) I've worked with numerous professors older than 70 that could keep up with a written discussion, particularly one with no set timeframe for response.
2) Again, there is no set timeframe for response. Take your time and compose an answer.
3) Again, there is no set timeframe for response. Take your time and compose an answer.
4) Yeah, well, welcome to online debates. You've taken a controversial position. This is actually polite and well-mannered for this sort of thing.
5) That's sort of the point some of us are trying to make. You're dabbling in things that are fairly complex, and haven't taken the time to really think things through. You demonstrably don't even know the rules for the game you're trying to play (no insult here--provenance is critical for archaeological finds, and you don't know what that is). Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.
6) You've spent over a week telling us what you're going to tell us, without telling us what you want to tell us. If you stop wasting everyone's time and TELL US, it'll go much quicker.

Quote:

8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

If you want to talk about isotopic dating, cool. We can do that. I've actually done C14 and thermoluminescence sampling before, and have a pretty good textbook on isotopic geocheimstry (perfectly applicable here, as the C14 in the shroud won't behave substantially differently from that in, say, plant fibers in an alluvial fan), so I'm always up for this type of discussion. What, exactly, do you consider the flaws in the C14 dating methods employed by the labs that tested the shroud fragments?

[Alex Cured]

If the ¹⁴C tests had come back with the result "circa 33 CE", I wonder what Jabba would think of the following objections:

Quote:

2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (madame flury-lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Well, at least you've admitted this.

There are several issues with your argument related to provenance. First and foremost, yes, for your argument to be real you have to prove that the shroud existed prior to 1260...

Dinwar,

- I don't think that I can "prove" that claim, but I do think that I can "strongly support" that claim -- I can present significant evidence for the claim. If I can, shouldn't that evidence be considered a valid part of the argument for authenticity?

- Otherwise, I'm happy to try to provide evidence for each of the claims you question. I'll even see what I can do about providing an unbroken chain of custody for one, but I think that will take a long time and I doubt that I'll ever be able to provide signatures.

- But then, from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples -- Riggi and Gonella went off by themselves to load the cuttings into the different containers (and actually finish the cuttings?)...

--- Jabba

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,

- I don't think that I can "prove" that claim, but I do think that I can "strongly support" that claim

No, you can't. The shroud is a hoax.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,

- I don't think that I can "prove" that claim,

Okay, let's stop here. I made numerous statements in my post. Did you read the rest? If not, why should I bother to discuss anything with you?

Quote:

I'll even see what I can do about providing an unbroken chain of custody for one, but I think that will take a long time and I doubt that I'll ever be able to provide signatures.

This suggests that you did not read my post. I provided numerous ways to prove the provenance of the samples other than a document with signatures.

Quote:

- But then, from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples --

Don't need to. All I need to establish is provenance--which has already been done in this thread. The trace element analysis has demonstrated that the C14 samples were from the shroud; thus, provenance is established. By the way, this is also what disproves the insane notion that an invisible, undetectable patch was put into the shroud by unknown people at an unknown date for unknown reasons.

Quote:

I don't think that I can "prove" that claim, but I do think that I can "strongly support" that claim

This is nothing more than you yet again telling us what you're going to tell us. Stop telling us what you're going to tell us and TELL US ALREADY. It will save you a great deal of time if you actually present the evidence supporting your position, rather than saying you'll present it eventually.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But then, from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples -- Riggi and Gonella went off by themselves to load the cuttings into the different containers (and actually finish the cuttings?)...

--- Jabba

See. That is why I find the mindset so interesting. More than once we have pointed out that everyone present saw the cuttings placed into containers and sealed. Yet, here again pops up the claim that these guys just carried the samples out of the room and no one thought "hmm, maybe I should go over there and watch them 'finish the cutting.' Maybe they will give away leftover threads to anyone who asks; I'd better hurry before a line starts."

The only thing missing from this train wreck of a thread is the claim that science has formed a conspiracy to repress the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity. But Jabba has made up for that absence with the claim that the Vatican is getting ready to announce the Shroud is genuine. Well played, Monsieur Jabba, well played.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

But Jabba has made up for that absence with the claim that the Vatican is getting ready to announce the Shroud is genuine.

Under the present Pontiff I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican was getting ready to announce that the Earth is flat.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I don't think that I can "prove" that claim, but I do think that I can "strongly support" that claim -- I can present significant evidence for the claim. If I can, shouldn't that evidence be considered a valid part of the argument for authenticity? ..

Quote:

I don't think...I can present significant evidence for...the argument for authenticity...

See? it all depends on how you read these messages.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

... All I need to establish is provenance--which has already been done in this thread. The trace element analysis has demonstrated that the C14 samples were from the shroud; thus, provenance is established. By the way, this is also what disproves the insane notion that an invisible, undetectable patch was put into the shroud by unknown people at an unknown date for unknown reasons. ...

Summed up in a nutshell.
Thanks, Dinwar!

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples -- Riggi and Gonella went off by themselves to load the cuttings into the different containers (and actually finish the cuttings?)...

There's video of it all. Why don't you watch that and see for yourself instead of relying on what other people have written?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I do tend to skim your posts when they're long, and in so doing, I have missed some critical points. But keep in mind that
1) I'm 69 yrs old with at least the average memory problems.
2) I'm a slow reader.
3) There's a whole lot of reading to do on this thread.
4) Overall, there must be fifty of you to the one of me.
5) A lot of what you say takes a lot of time to understand.
6) I only have so much time for fun.
--- Jabba

All of which is fine, as long as you're happy to admit that you're extremely uninformed about this subject.

I mean, you keep going on about how you want to participate in fruitful discussion when you're laying down your rules and numbered lists in order to tell us what you might deign to type at some point, but how much of a fruitful discussion do you honestly think it's possible to have if you don't even read the replies to your posts? All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la la, I'm not listening" when other people talk. Is that honestly what you think of as a good discussion?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...- But then, from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples -- Riggi and Gonella went off by themselves to load the cuttings into the different containers (and actually finish the cuttings?)...

Originally Posted by wollery

There's video of it all. ...

I've lost sight of the link to that video.
Does anyone have it to hand?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

There's video of it all. Why don't you watch that and see for yourself instead of relying on what other people have written?

Wollery,
- Does the video show them putting the samples into the containers?
- I'm sure that you guys have given me a link to the video already; could you give it again?
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Well, at least you've admitted this.

There are several issues with your argument related to provenance. First and foremost, yes, for your argument to be real you have to prove that the shroud existed prior to 1260...

Dinwar,
- Do you really mean "prove"?
--- Jabba

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- Do you really mean "prove"?

Yes. If you cannot prove conclusively that the shroud dates from the time of Jeshua bin Yoseph's crucifixion (and believe me, for this forum I'm being generous by not demanding you prove there WAS a crucifixion) AT BEST you can merely say that the cloth is an interesting historical artifact. And as that's where I stand on the shroud right now (though I say "..an interesting historical fraud" rather than artifact), this means your argument fails.

And since you want to play lawyer I believe it's reasonable to demand you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

- Does the video show them putting the samples into the containers?

This video has been described numerous times in this thread. If you have to ask this question you haven't read it, and are lying when you pretend to be engaging in a conversation (since a conversation requires two-way communication).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But then, from what I've read, I doubt you can prove an unbroken chain of custody for the actual carbon dating samples -- Riggi and Gonella went off by themselves to load the cuttings into the different containers (and actually finish the cuttings?)...

--- Jabba

I have never seen the film of what exactly happened when the C14 sample was cut. It is possible that at one point Riggi or Gonella may have taken the cut sample to another room or an adjoining building. But so what?

Even if as Ray Rogers seems to say, Gonella had somehow removed 3 or 4 threads from the C14 sample, that still would not change the C14 dates.

And as we have explained many times here, Rogers paper does nothing at all to invalidate the C14 results.

What you seem to be doing is continuously raising all sorts of conspiracy theories. Such as suggesting that perhaps Gonella had somehow tampered with part of the C14 sample. And suggesting that the C14 tests were invalid because less than 7 labs were involved and samples were not cut from multiple different areas, etc.

Any of us could claim to express all sorts of doubts about absolutely anything and everything. But the bottom line on the C14 is that the three radiocarbon labs were not staffed by untrained idiots. They were perfectly well able to see for themselves what condition their samples were in. And perfectly capable of making accurate dating measurements, just as they had done on all sorts of other ancient artefacts in the past.

There is nothing to genuinely suggest why anyone should have doubts about the C14 results. And that’s not changed by you and other shroud believers constantly raising all sorts of vague conspiracy theories about how Gonella may taken away part of the C14 sample and given it to Ray Rogers, or about how the Vatican itself invalidated the C14 testing by refusing to allow more than three labs to test one single sample area, or about why nobody except Ray Rogers (from STURP) could detect an invisible re-weave even under the highest magnifying microscopes, etc. etc.

[pakeha]

About that mysterious disappearance to a 'side room':
"Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite."
from
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I hope you're not suggesting the Archbishop was party to sabotaging the testing, Jabba.

This link goes to an eye-witness account of the sample taking:
http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/hedges.html

"For example, it has been asserted that the sub-samples of the shroud cloth (but presumably not of the control samples) were deceptively substituted by ones not from the Shroud of Turin. Having witnessed the sampling operation, I find this assertion incredible, but I can produce no scientific evidence to refute it (although the characteristic weave of the shroud cloth is certainly unusual and easily recognised)."

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Yes. If you cannot prove conclusively that the shroud dates from the time of Jeshua bin Yoseph's crucifixion (and believe me, for this forum I'm being generous by not demanding you prove there WAS a crucifixion) AT BEST you can merely say that the cloth is an interesting historical artifact. And as that's where I stand on the shroud right now (though I say "..an interesting historical fraud" rather than artifact), this means your argument fails.

And since you want to play lawyer I believe it's reasonable to demand you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt...

Dinwar,
- To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Everyone else,
- Do anybody else disagree with Dinwar re this specific issue?

--- Jabba

[Dinwar]

One of the things that needs to be born in mind in this discussion is the difference between reasonable and unreasonable doubt. As others have said, we can concoct an ad-hoc explanation for any data presented--however, that doesn't make our doubt reasonable. Similarly, we can reject any analysis we want merely by making higher and higher standards that must be met--however, that does not make our standards reasonable.

It is reasonable to doubt the validity of stray fabers of questionable provenance. It's also reasonable--and I would say required--to doubt dubious tests that assume things known to not be true (for example, that a cloth that has scorch marks from a fire never exceeded 20 degrees C in temperature). It is reasonable to doubt the statements of monks about the authenticity of religious artifacts when monks of that time were widely known to fabricate fake artifacts as a way to generate income.

It is not reasonable to doubt the sampling procedure of the shroud because someone may have made an invisible and undetectable patch using methods we still couldn't replicated. It is not reasonable to doubt well-established and independantly verified dating techniques without providing a reason (if you have a reason, that's a whole different story).

Merely because you can offer an alternate excavation doesn't mean that the alternative is reasonable. Systematic doubt doesn't mean that you never know anything--because we must always remember to doubt our doubts, and establish whether they are reasonable, or merely the product of wanting to believe something.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Everyone else,
- Do anybody else disagree with Dinwar re this specific issue?

How much more obvious could Dinwar's point be?

Jesus died in the first century.

Shroud dates from the 14th century.

Why would you waste time discussing the other details?

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by carlitos

How much more obvious could Dinwar's point be?

Jesus died in the first century.

Shroud dates from the 14th century.

Why would you waste time discussing the other details?

Agree. Dinwar makes sense, and I concur with his arguments.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Everyone else,
- Do anybody else disagree with Dinwar re this specific issue?

What doesn't make sense in Dinwar's post?
Please be specific.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Everyone else,
- Do anybody else disagree with Dinwar re this specific issue?

--- Jabba

Nope, I agree completely with Dinwar. The Shroud has been dated to the 14th century by a very reliable testing method from samples taken under strict protocols. If you can't show, definitively, that the tests were wrong, AND show, definitively, that it dates from the 1st century then you have nothing.

And even if you satisfy both of the above conditions you still only have an interesting piece of cloth that dates from the 1st century.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dinwar,
- To me, this just doesn't make sense.

Everyone else,
- Do anybody else disagree with Dinwar re this specific issue?

--- Jabba

Instead of trying to start up a new line of discussion about whatever Dinwar said to you, why after 26 pages of being asked, are you still refusing to answer even the simplest and most direct questions?

Your job here is to answer those few simple questions, not to keep trying to change the subject!

Questions such as these (for the 20th time of asking!) -

Q1. Why, after examining the shroud in detail for a whole month, did Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg unequivocally state that Rogers was completely wrong, and that there was definitely no re-weave or “patch”?


Q2. Can you think of any plausible reason why anyone in c.1500’s.AD would attempt to make an apparently impossible microscopically invisible repair at a tiny insignificant corner of the shroud, when at the same date the same people were making repairs right next to vital parts of the image, repairs so huge that, far from being “invisible”, anyone could see them from 50ft away? …

… can you explain how that could ever possibly be the case?

[Dinwar]

Quote:

Dinwar,
- To me, this just doesn't make sense.

The issue is that even if something is true, you may not be able to prove it.

Let's say the shroud is actually the burial cloth of Jeshua bin Yoseph. The question is, can we prove it? If we can't, than we can't say that we know it's the burial cloth--we simply cannot know, because not enough data is available for us to draw that conclusion. It sucks, but hey, welcome to my world.

There are a couple of places you can start in proving that the shroud is really Jeshua bin Yoesph's burial cloth--all of which need to be established. If ANY of them is not, you cannot have sufficient evidence to say that the shroud is his burial cloth. One of these lines of data is the date. The logic is simple: in order for the shroud to be the burial cloth of a guy from the 1st century AD the cloth cannot be younger than the first century AD. If it dates to the 13th century, it's not Jeshua bin Yoesph's burial cloth.

If it DOES date to the first centry AD (or ealier), there are still numerous reasonable alternative explanations for the shroud. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a forger used ancient materials to lend an air of authenticity to his work. It's entirely possible, if the shroud is from the first century, that what happened was a forger found a clean ancient cloth and created the image on that cloth. The cloth would date to the 1st century, but it still would be a 13th century artifact. It's also possible that the cloth was the burial shroud of some other dead guy from the first century.

But that's getting ahead of ourselves. We're talking dating, not alternative explanations. Your first task, therefore, is to prove that the shroud is in fact from the correct time period. Not suggest, not hint at, but PROVE. This is central to your arguments, and therefore demands nothing less. If there is reasonable doubt as to the dating of the shroud, it CANNOT be proven to be Jeshua bin Yoseph's burial cloth even if it WAS his burial cloth--the information would have been lost in time, and irretrievable.

Let's look at how this works with another artifact: Let's say I have a comic book signed by Stan Lee. I say it's the first of that comic book printed--not just from the first run, but the first book to come off the line. It's on paper indistinguishable from the rest, using ink indistinguishable from the rest, STan Lee signed a few dozen of these particular comics, and I have no documentation to support my claim, either in the form of legal documents or video surveylance. I say there's an eye witness, but he passed away a few years back and he's the only one. How much would you believe my statement? It's not entirely implausible--there has to be a first book, after all, and SOMEONE has to have it. But would you buy my story, given the data you have to work with?

To make it even more parallel with the shroud case, let's say I tell you this in a convention known for including numerous conmen and frauds. The police have busted three people for fraud already at this very convention. Do you still believe I have the first copy of the book produced?

[pakeha]

Eight hundred.

Is the C14 dating acceptable or not?
If yes, then the TS is a medieval artifact.

If not, why not?
And demonstrate why not.
Remember that any flim flam with the samples would have been done under the eye of the Archbishop of Turin, so be careful with what you advocate.
It's very simple, Jabba.