Pomp

MortalWombat,

Take-home message: Old blood is not red. It is brown to black in color. The "blood" on the shroud is red, like someone who doesn't know about forensics would put on if he were trying to make something look like it was blood.

The obvious conclusion is that Jesus was prescient enough to realize that his followers wouldn't know anything about forensics and magically preserved his blood so that it would remain red for all time.

x-member

If only it turned out to be a wine stain. At least churchs might let up on the grapejuice at communion.

JOn

x-member

Just a few things on the bacterial film influencing the carbon dating.

Though I am by no means an expert on carbon dating, it strikes me that there would indeed need to be a great deal of bacteria present to influence the dating. Carbon dating involves extrapolating age based on the known decay rate of carbon 14. Biological organisms are constantly exchanging carbon with the environment. When they die, this stops, and the carbon 14 isotopes decay can be measure. (Most of you know this).

The cloth itself is composed of strong fibers which contain a high concentration of carbon. It would be reasonable to check out just what percentage of the mass of the linnen is carbon. Next I wonder this: If the bacterial film added 60% to the width of the fiber, so what? How much mass do the bacteria add? Of that mass, how much is carbon? What ratio are we now looking at for the mass of carbon contributed by the bacteria vs. the mass of carbon present in the shroud? I would guess that the shroud would be quite a bit more carbonaceous than the bacteria (who's mass would contain a large amount of water).

Or was it the second asertion, that 60% of the mass of the shroud comes from the bacterial film? Again it would be worth while looking at how much of that mass is carbon and look at the ratio vs the shroud.

Fibers tend to be composed of protein polymers which are very very high in carbon. The mass or width or other such measure of the bacterial film is rather irrelevent. The mass of carbon the bacteria bring to the table is the true issue. Given that 1 gram of bacteria would contain much less carbon than, say, 1 gram of (for example) wool, I tend to side with the scientists who feel that the amount of bacteria necessary to skew the results beyond a few hundred years would have to be monumentaly huge.

As for the bacteria getting their carbon from the shroud itself, unfortunatly that is not the case. (were it so, the cloth would have long ago been destroyed). There's a lot of C02 in the atmosphere and it is the prefered choice of carbon for most bacteria.

Jon

Koyaanisqatsi

Like my dear friend and war buddy Tercel, I too am no expert, but since that didn't stop him from offering a 'reasonable doubt' counter-post and Terc stated, "I would certainly be interested to hear responses/rebuttals to these points," allow me to examine this in kind.

I find it particularly telling that Tercel asks us to remember that he is presenting Jeffrey's arguments, not his, yet begins with his own assessment in order to setup the "reasonable doubt" straw man:

Keep all of this uppermost in your minds as we go into this, since this is the tenuous, historical link Jeffrey relies upon. An alleged linen cloth bearing Christ's "face" is possibly another alleged cloth bearing Christ's face that becomes possibly the Shroud.

Pun intended?

Plausible? In what way "plausible?" That Thomas and Thaddaeus, alleged to be "apostles" of God on Earth would present such remarkable physical proof of their savior's existence to a King as a gift, instead of enshrining such a holy relic in a temple or church as being the most holy possible cloth containing God's face and God's blood?

"Hey, we're going to go see a King. What gift is appropriate?"
"How about the cloth we buried our resurrected God and One True Savior in? You know, the one with God's face and blood on it? It'll just collect bio-plastic dust here."



For that matter, in what way "history?" You have a ridiculous story of the apostles of Jesus giving away his burial shroud (with a picture of God and his blood on it) to a King.

Five hundred years later you have another story about a cloth that is alleged to have "Christ's" face on it, an impossible to verify claim with absolutely no historical credence or means to verify the story.

"Hey, look at this cloth. I bet it's the One True God!"
"You mean Allah?"
"No, Jesus, of course! What makes you think Allah?"
"Well, we're in Edessa! What makes you think Jesus?"
"Because I was alive five hundred years ago and remember what he looks like."
"Oh."

In short, you have a whole bunch of stories--what we freethinkers like to call folklore--clearly borne out of Christian minds and Christian myths.

Why would the Muslims keep the cloth intact (and how would they) for over three hundred years, only to then give it away to Romanus? How would Romanus know about a cloth alleged to have been taken by the Muslims and held intact for over three hundred years?

It goes on display every year for another three hundred years until the French Crusaders take it and what? Hide it in a Knight's vault for another hundred and fifty years? For what purpose? It's been on display for three hundred years!

Ludicrous fiction to make it all seem plausible. That is not history; that is folklore and myth hinging upon the most ludicrous of all implausibility; that the apostles of Jesus would give such a thing away--a photograph of God!

Neither do I, but if that's an example of Jeffrey's scholarship, we don't need to know more.

Really? Was the letter signed?

Did the manuscript that is in question by Jeffrey by chance have an official seal on it, or some other typical mark perhaps? Did it ever occur to Jeffrey that a Bishop's communication would not necessarily require a signature to make it authentic? That the manuscript could have been simply a collection of the Bishop's personal papers or a journal of some kind? Did the question ever pop into Jeffrey's mind of why anyone would forge such a document?

It's so easy to cast doubt without specifics, isn't?

Controversy in what way? That a carbon dating specialist from the 14th century didn't step forward and publicly declare that the most powerful Theocratic Dictatorship in human history was perpetrating a deliberate fraud by displaying the shroud? That Papal authentication was not sufficient to establish the shroud as a miracle?

What the hell are you talking about? Who, in 1358 is going to look at the shroud, have the ability to recognize it as a fraud and then proclaim, "The Pope is a liar!?"

"It has apparently been alleged by critics" that "some of the 14" protocols were broken. Well, that's certainly sterling evidence establishing fraud, right?

Wrong. It is reprehensible shoddiness deliberately designed to make it seem like there could be fraud. Notice, of course, that nothing specific is mentioned or demonstrated, just that the allegations have apparently been made, by critics, i.e., biased christians.

It doesn't even say what the impact of allegedly breaking "some" of those protocols was or how breaking any of the protocols would result in different scientific conclusions, since the protocols were self-imposed to help make sure no "fraud" in the process was perpetrated; no fraud in their own process, not whether or not the shroud was a fraud!

So, the primary objection Jeffrey raises is that there's a chance, apparently, that possibly, according to biased antagonists, some of the guidelines the scientists created for themselves, weren't followed precisely to the letter, maybe, with the disingenuous implication being that their scientific approach was flawed.

That isn't scholarship even worthy of Metacrock.

Unless, of course, the scientists conducting the tests took this into consideration, which they did.

What's not a "crazy idea?" We can't tell due to the ellipses. As to the second part of the quote, assuming it's referring to a hypothetical about incompetent scientists, even if they were off by a 1000 years, that would still be two to three hundred years after Jesus.

It's funny how you present Jeffrey's non-arguments without applying any kind of critical analysis prior so that you can imply that there is a question where none actually exists.

Ok, so we're no longer dealing with Jeffrey's "scholarship," but your own questions.

I've heard it alleged that our government is controlled by "grays" from the far side of the moon.

I've heard it suggested that ambiguous phrasing and hearsay speculation serves only one purpose; to imply a reasonable doubt where none factually exists.

<ol type="1">[*] Who performed these tests?[*] How old was the blood?[*] Where on the shroud was this blood?[*] How does this negate the evidence that the image was painted?[/list=a]

Again, how old was the blood and where was the blood located on the shroud? You (and, apparently Jeffrey) are making it seem is if you're discussing the blood from the alleged wounds, yet note that such specifics are nowhere to be found. The terminology of the conclusion "definitely contained blood," is so suspect as to literally leap off the page at me when I read it, so if Jeffrey has any kind of specifics regarding how old the blood was or from where it was found on the shroud, I would appreciate it.

Your (and his) speculation will not suffice.

After all of the people allegedly handling this shroud throughout the centuries--and the alleged wars fought over "retrieving it"--why would it be surprising that it would "contain" blood?

The question that your evidence doesn't answer is, of course, the only salient one; is it Christ's blood?

If your answer to that is, "How could we possibly know that?" then you've just negated the entire ridiculous story of how anybody could have possibly thought the shroud's face was the face of Jesus.

Houses of cards are extremely precarious, Terc old bean.

McCrone did. Why should anyone doubt McCrone's discovery? Jeffrey's observation means nothing. Did anyone else try to detect it after McCrone already did? Would anyone have a reason to doubt McCrone's findings?

Once again, we don't have scholarship or even intelligent analysis; we have speculative semantics games that offer nothing cogent for the sole purpose of implying there's reasonable doubt where none exists.

This is (so far) little more than a variation on "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

"Confirmed" to exist on the shroud? Where is this confirmation? Where is this blood? How old is this alleged blood?

This lack of scholarship and critical analysis is so transparently shoddy the mind literally boggles.

It is possible that this iron came from a meteorite from the Oort Cloud. It is possible that this iron came from a tragic time travel experiment from the year 2854 that went (and will go) horribly wrong. It is possible that Tercel (and Jeffrey) have no intellectual integrity whatsoever and are committing deliberate fraud in order to keep their sheep ignorant of basic facts by the most obvious form of disingenuous "spin" I've ever seen.

Which "argument" would that be? That McCrone found this element in addition to all of the other elements on the shroud?

Typical cult straw man misdirection.

And what about the paint particles found on the image portion of the shroud?

So far Jeffrey (and you) have danced around and around and around--you've done the hokey pokey and you've turned yourself about--and that's what it's all about, right? No critical, honest analysis, just smokescreen and speculation designed not to prove anything, but just to confuse the issue as much as possible so that doubt is triggered, because doubt is fine! Doubt is good. Cults thrive on doubt. Doubt=God, right Thomas?

So, a quick recap so far of Jeffrey's "arguments" shows that absolutely nothing has been refuted or called into question.

Is there more...?

What a shock.

There's that ambiguousness again. "Several professionals apparently being impressed." Well, that's sufficient for me!

Are you mistaking artistic styles for artistic ability? Yes, you are.

Well, I guess we should all just take your word for that. After all, you clearly wouldn't have any bias or motivation to lie, right, and I'm sure your approximation of the actual manner in which the alleged body is laid out as depicted on the shroud was spot on, right?

I noticed, as well, that you ignored the commentary on the elongated features and the ratio of the body to the head; aka, the evidence.

Well, so long as such an intellectually honest scholar with no demonstrated bias or history of deliberate misdirection such as Jeffrey insists that no one has "convincingly" demonstrated how the image was produced, that's good enough for me to discard the actual demonstrations depicted on the website! If Jeffrey isn't convinced and he insists, well, that's all I need!



Sorry, that little tidbit was all I needed. So long as you have heard it alleged elsewhere then that's enough for me to dismiss legitimate, unbiased scientific conclusions from a variety of sources.

No, but their analysis does.

Do you have any information about what actual scientists think of the speculations Jeffrey presents as transparent pseudoscientific misdirection?

There's that word again!

This is his scientific analysis, is it? He's an expert on rigor mortis and medieval artists, is he?

He goes from the body apparently depicted in the state of rigor mortis to the unsupportable conclusion that "no medieval artist" could have duplicated with such perfection a state that is only apparently depicted?

Do you stop to think at all about what this person is saying and how poorly the arguments are formed before you post them? I'm sincerely curious.

You mean, the artist did a good job depicting wounds? Wow. What a shock.

Yeah, because no medieval artists was familiar with actually witnessing such brutality on a daily basis, right?

He is "apparently" a very experienced coroner or he is a very experienced coroner? You just love that word, apparently.

Again, this says nothing about whether or not an artist could (or could not) depict such a thing, must less about the most salient issue (the one you skirted), which is the body to head ratio and elongated features.

Bullshit! Unmitigated bullshit. Style and ability have nothing to do with one another! Picasso (like all artists) started out drawing human anatomy and then discarded what he considered to be pedestrian art in favor of exploring the new styles of painting of the day, eventually developing his own style that he is most famous for, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of drawing a human body as realistically as possible if he wanted to.

Likewise, counterfeiters are capable of drawing in any number of different styles in order to commit their frauds, but not a one of them is limited to only painting in one style.

If Hieronymus Bosch wanted to paint a realistic looking human being in order to commit a deliberate fraud, he wouldn't be trapped by the fact that he lived in "medieval times!" That's patently absurd and speaks volumes about Jeffrey's lack of critical analysis and ludicrous scholarship, reflected all the more onto you, Terc for posting it as if it offered anything counter-refutational (or even remotely cogent) at all.

"Right" to you? Are you a doctor? Do you have any forensic experience? An engineer, perhaps, who would be able to recognize that a head to body ratio like the one depicted in the shroud would be structurally impossible? Any relevant training at all?

No.

So, you presented it why? To throw up more shrapnel?

This is what I read above: Apparently...some speculation...may have...apparently...apparently..some of the details...appear to match...Jeffrey does admit the existence of these coins is inconclusive.

With all of that ambiguous terminology surrounding this speculation, it appears, however, that they might be coins minted under Pontius Pilate. Whether or not they are there or not is uncertain, but if they are there, it appears you can read "E Pluribus Pontius Pilate" on them, is that it?

For fuck's sake.

"Supposedly" done in this manner; "apparently" a common weave in antiquity, but unknown in medieval Europe.

Boy this is fun! And so much easier than actual scholarship.

Apparently? What another shock.

Which locations would those be, by the way?

And when was this pollen examined and who examined it? Why isn't this pollen part of the 60% bioplastic material that accumulated over the six hundred odd centuries that the Shroud of Turin went through? In those six hundred years, was the shroud ever in Jerusalem? Did people from Jerusalem come to see the shroud and deposited such pollen?

There are literally a million different speculative questions anyone can ask of such vague nonsense, which is, of course, you're intention, but it doesn't change the fact that the scientists who investigated the limited sections they were allowed to took all of this noise into account to begin with!

Which is evidence of fraud if you'd take two seconds to think critically for a second. If these images are stitched on there (it's hard to tell when you're so vague) then at what point would any follower of Jesus have time to carefully stitch such images (and why would they) prior to burial?

If these images are supposed to have appeared in the same manner as the face and the body (i.e., photographically), then where would these 28 species of herbs and plants have been found? In the burial tomb?

In a tomb?

Which microspically matches in composition with dirt found in New Zealand and Russia and America...

Please. No one is that stupid.

So, you're saying that the fantasies of other artists has some sort of bearing on a deliberate fraud? That if I'm trying to create a counterfeit of an actual burial shroud of Jesus, I'm going to do this based on mythologically based paintings?

It is if you're attempting a fraud! Think, damn you, think!

Yes, well what anything "seems" to you (or Jeffrey) to be easier is hardly relevant, but thanks for the input.


No, they actually don't. They look exactly like what they are; speculative pseudoscience misdirection to make it seem as if there are enough questions to raise reasonable doubt. As I mentioned before, in the cult realm, doubt is all that is necessary to establish something as fact, so, well done.

Well, since you didn't know anything and Jeffrey didn't either, I'm sure you'll get exactly what you've asked for.

lpetrich

Good Grief! It costs energy to fix carbon, and that energy has to come from somewhere. And eaters of organic molecules tend to get their carbon from those organic molecules, and are not likely to be big CO2-fixers.

The most likely nonphotosynthetic CO2-eaters are methanogens, but they use the chemical reaction

CO2 + 4H2 -&gt; CH4 + 2H2O

meaning that they have to get hydrogen gas from somewhere. And the only possible source in the Shroud would be bacteria that eat organic materials, such as those that the Shroud is made of.

One reasonably concludes that the Shroud could not have acquired significant amounts of extra carbon.

I note in passing that plant fibers contain much cellulose, which is approximately (CH2O)n -- lots of carbon. Dry bacteria are broadly similar, though wet ones have less.

x-member

Agreed.

Which was my point.

My understanding from the earlier posts is that the bacterial film was signifigant because the bacteria were still alive and thus still exchanging carbon with the environment.

I'm simply agreeing that there would likely have to be a fairly substantial amount of living bacteria on the shroud to give xians that magic 2000 year date they so hope for.

lpetrich

Or so it is claimed by Shroud believers. However, I'm arguing that one would not expect Shroud bacteria to be fixing carbon dioxide, which they would have to do in order to push down the C-14 date.

MortalWombat

I have neither the time nor the inclination to address every point that some religious zealot makes when it has already been assertained that the thing is a 14th century forgery to the satisfaction of most everyone who objectively looks at the convergence of evidence that points to it being a forgery. Most of what he says is either "would have, could have" hand-waiving or a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence. By the way, I accepted the C14 evidence when it came out in 1988, when I was a Christian and had previously believed it was the genuine shroud. I remember being dissapointed about the results, so don't give me any of that "preferred verdict" stuff.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

lpetrich

To me, all this "would be, could be" stuff is like saying that Jesus Christ could have been homosexual, that Judas Iscariot could have been his lover, that the two could have had a lovers' quarrel, and that all the rumors of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene are the result of JC having MM as his "beard" (seeming evidence of heterosexuality).

Isn't it wonderful to think of "could have beens"?

Also, believers in the Shroud of Turin's authenticity are all closed-minded hyperskeptics with respect to the Cloak of Kandahar -- even if that cloak cured them of some terrible disease, they still would not believe that the Cloak of Kandahar had been worn by Mohammed himself.

leonarde

This is the first that I'd heard of the Cloak of
Kandahar: can you describe it and any of the evidence/tradition/references that lead people
to believe it genuine?

I'm not a Muslim but Muhammed was clearly a real
flesh and blood man: so he certainly must have
worn a cloak. It occurs to me that this Cloak MAY
BE genuine. I think 98% of Americans (like me) are
UNAWARE of the Cloak of Kandahar and therefore not
believers in its authenticity.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>