Blood on the Shroud
Actual Debates
7/22/11
(As of today, in as much as my opponents now seem to accept the likely presence of real blood on the Shroud, and that the image and blood were not painted, I'm putting the organization of the debates below aside, and moving on to the carbon- dating issue.)

 

- Keep in mind that I'm flying by the seat of my pants here -- experimenting and inventing as I go -- so please be patient.


- The numbers in the red brackets in the following exchanges represent my current evaluation of my own efforts regarding that particular exchange. For now, I'll give myself a +1 if I think that the particular exchange favored my side, and a -1 if I think that it disfavored my side.
- If an exchange includes more than one point of favor or disfavor, that exchange will receive more than one score.
- I'll try to get my opponents to join in and evaluate my efforts also. Assuming that I can convince them to participate over here (they have grown tired of my stubborness over there), I'll show their evaluations of my efforts in black brackets. A "-1" from them would indicate that in their judgment, the particular exchange disfavored me. A little confusing, but I think that were the opponents to score themselves, the results would be even more confusing. Hopefully, this won't be such a big deal, anyway...
- I will provide as many opponent evaluations as I get (for each subissue). We'll see what happens.
- By doing it this way, I won't have to worry that much about being objective in my scoring... I'll try to be objective anyway -- but, it isn't easy, and this way, I just won't have to worry about it...
- Since I don't want to discourage the submission of potential evidence and logic, if a claim that supports either side -- but is not necessary support for any other claim -- is debunked, the exchange will just get me a 0.
-
Sorry about all of that.

- Hopefully, in addition, this separating of each sub-sub issue, and scoring each, will promote reopening of sub-sub-issues that -- in my opinion -- shouldn't be closed. My opponents keep telling me that I'm beating a dead horse (and worse), but in my opinion my horse is still very much alive -- and even well -- and so far my opponents have just been able to ignore its vital signs. I'm thinking that with the itemizing and scoring, they won't be able to do that anymore...

Participants: Jabba (J), MartinRuager (MR), Steenkh (St), Xaignar (X), OhMan (OM), Flower (F), BigField (BF), CountingTeeth (CT)

 

Taken from http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891

Color of the 'blood.'

Jabba (J), #1:
There is real blood on the shroud, and in the right places.

MartinRuager(MR), #3:
- Blood gets black when it dries up and ages. It does not get red as on the shroud. If any blood was ever found on the shroud of turin it could stem from ANY of the hundreds of people who have handled it through the ages. There has been no actual blood lifted from the shroud. Whatever substance that could resemble blood on the shroud has been proven by McCrone to be ochre and vermilion.

Steenkh (St), #9:
- If you look at old bloodstains, like the bloody shirts and handkerchiefs that are sometimes displayed in museums when they belonged to famous persons, you will find that they are not black, but brownish, and that they seem to lose their colour over time.

J, #12:
- try this, from http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html
BLOOD EVIDENCE (vs PAINT THEORY)
The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.). This blood type is rare (3.2% of the world population, according to Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes of the University of Texas Health Science Center), and is found mostly in the Middle East, with the highest percentage being in northern Palestine. Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (Univ. of Western Connecticut) and the late Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood.

J, #21:
- From http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037, The Catholic News Agency. Obviously, they're biased, but they are quoting a lot of real scientists.
- Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics...
- CNA spoke with Dr. John Jackson who runs the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and is a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained...
- Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli’s team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted “two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud” show “that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second.”
- Dr. Keith Propp, a physicist who is also a colleague of Jackson's, told CNA that while Garlaschelli’s shroud “does create an image that could’ve been done in medieval times,” there are a many things that “are not consistent with what the actual shroud shows us.”
- For example, he continued, we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.” He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate “because it would ruin the blood stains.” ...
[+1]

...........................................................


The U of Texas contribution to the 'blood.' evidence. [0]

J, #12:
- try this, from http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html...
"...Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes
representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."

X (Xaignar), #390:
- Good grief, it's a long thread you people have built up!
I'm far from the end, but as far as I can tell, the following has not been addressed: The notion that finding DNA on the shroud can be used as evidence of anything is absurd. We are talking about an artifact that has been handled by countless people over the ages, with no steps taken to avoid contamination (obviously, as that was not a concern), thus resulting in repeated contamination by human DNA. I've been unable to find anything published by Victor and Nacy Tryon, so I cannot say if they even took steps to minimize the effects of this contamination. Second-hand descriptions indicate only the use of PCR to amplify human DNA, which by itself is extremely susceptible to contamination. However, at that point the sample had already been repeatedly contaminated, so that probably makes no difference.
- As it turns out, Tryon was aware of this, but you wouldn't know based on most of the people who cite his work:Of the tests, Tryon says, "All I can tell you is that DNA contamination is present and that the DNA belonged either to a human or another higher primate. I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how long it's been there." It is, he says, not necessarily the remains of blood. "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there."
- To sum up: Attempting to draw conclusions from the presence of DNA on the shroud is foolish at best, and simply dishonest at worst.

- [0]
............................................................

 

'Blood' on the Shroud before the image. [+1]

J, #21:
- From http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037, The Catholic News Agency. Obviously, they're biased, but they are quoting a lot of real scientists.
- Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics...
- CNA spoke with Dr. John Jackson who runs the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and is a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained...
- Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli’s team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted “two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud” show “that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second.”
- Dr. Keith Propp, a physicist who is also a colleague of Jackson's, told CNA that while Garlaschelli’s shroud “does create an image that could’ve been done in medieval times,” there are a many things that “are not consistent with what the actual shroud shows us.”
- For example, he continued, we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body “because there’s no image beneath the shroud.” He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate “because it would ruin the blood stains.” ...
[+1]
................................................................

 


'Expert' claims that blood flowing after death shows clear separation of blood and serum. [0]

J, #21:
- ...Garlachelli’s technique has also received criticism from other experts. One scientist from the Shroud Science Group, a private forum of about 100 scientists, historians and researchers provided CNA with some of the critiques made in the forum.
- One English-speaking expert explained that the blood used on the Shroud of Turin is not whole blood. “They didn't just go out and kill a goat and paint the blood on the cloth. The blood chemistry is very specific,” he said explaining that the blood is from “actual wounds.”
- He added that most of the blood on the shroud flowed after death. “The side wound and the blood that puddles across the small of the back are post-mortem blood flows,” he said, adding that blood flowing after death “shows a clear separation of blood and serum.”...

St, #25:
I am curious about this claim because I can find no source telling us blood separates into blood and serum after death, but it does separate on clotting, which is what blood does when it leaves the body, so why should blood ringed with stains from serum be something special?

J, #42:
Steen,
- So far, I think you're right. It looks like somebody said it, others repeated it, and the rest is history.
- If you recall, the quote I cited was attributed to "an English-speaking expert" by the Catholic News Agency. That did seem like a rather strange "introduction"...
- From what I've found, post mortem wounds do have different characteristics than live wounds, but not such that the serum is separated from the blood...
[0]
...................................................


MR, #40:
And don't forget that McCrone actually did some quite nifty chemistry work on the shroud for which he received a rather prestigeous reward and uncoverede that what to some seemed to be actual blood was just ochre and vermilion mixed with some kind of binder. All ingredients in a mix which was commonly used by artists in the 13th and 14th century.

J, #46:
Martin,
- Check out http://messiahornot.com/ShroudPainted.php.
- #'s 1 - 10 come from "Thoughtful skeptical inquirer, "http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/.
- #11 comes from Shroud Mania, http://blog.ecso.org/2010/04/shroud-of-turin-mania/.

[0]
..........................................................

 

 

St, #41:
- And yet the Christians still claim that it is blood? Even that blood and serum has separated?
- When are we finally going to see somebody extracting the DNA from the shroud so that we can determine if the Templars were right, and we do do have descendants of Christ among us today

J, #48:
Steen,
- Check out http://messiahornot.com/ShroudBlood.php -- especially #5 (which comes from Wikipedia).

St, #57:
- OK, it is real blood, except possibly if the critique of Joe Nickell is right. What a pity that they could not get any usable DNA out of it. Can they not even determine if the blood is human?

J, #61:
Steen,
- So far, various scientists have called the stains "human blood," and some have claimed even of the AB type, but as you know, there seem to be some reasonable doubts -- at least of the typing.
- I just sent an email to Dr. Merriwether at SUNY asking if the sample he tested appeared to be human. Hopefully, he has time to answer extraneous requests

J, #63:
- The following seems to me a great article -- dealing with the blood issue, natural processes, McCrone and peer-review.
http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- Being pdf, I am as yet unable to copy anything in it. I'll keep working on that.

J, #79:
Steen,
- Did you also read the paper to which I referred back in post #63? (http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf)
- Between the two papers, authenticity is hard to deny.
- I suppose that the main reason I saw this particular paper as so conclusive, is that once again I’m finding naturalistic explanations for claims of seemingly miraculous events -- but where the “timing” of things still retains a “miracle.” Once again, I have to hope that that communicates.
- You can read http://messiahornot.com/Virtually1.php to get some examples of this sort of thing. It’s long.

St, #80:
- Why?
- One paper argues that it is fairly easy to produce the image if you have got a decomposing dead body, and the other argues that the blood on the shroud is real blood, or precisely what I would have used if I wanted to produce a high-quality relic to sell at a huge price.
- Well, I would have used animal blood, and in those days they did not realise that it is possible to see the difference. But human blood is not too difficult to obtain, and blood-letting has been a common practice right back in antiquity.
- Why do you think that any of this establishes genuine authenticity?
- In my mind it is particularly suspect that the "Jesus" of the shroud looks much like the Jesus known from paintings made hundreds of years after the crucifixion, even though these paintings are only based on a tradition, and not a live image. This is what I would expect from a forger.

 

OhMan (OM), #182:
- ...This brings me to my next question, how could the Shroud of Turin possibly ever be verified to be the same Shroud that once lay over Jesus' corpse? We have no evidence, besides text, that show Jesus ever existed. No DNA, no body, no blood, even the archaeological findings and extra-biblical references in Nazareth seem to have a suspicious gap between 720BCE and 200CE. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

 

J, #185:
Steen,
- Do you have any suggestions as to how such a forgery could be accomplished?

St, #187:
- Yes. Find a body that looks like Jesus, wrap it in a shroud, wait for some time, remove the shroud, and dab it with human blood at the places where one would expect blood to have been present on the body of Christ. Then go and sell it for a fortune to naive religious believers. 800 years later, people will be awe-struck at the miraculous image, even though that was probably not of importance to the forger.

J, #222:
Steen,
- After the reading you have now done, do you still think your suggestion makes sense?

J, #232:
- If you need citations, let me know -- but, I think that research has shown that the blood would have had to be placed on the Shroud before the image -- which seems pretty unlikely in a forgery, given the rest of the conditions.

St, #235:
- Quite true. A citation would be nice. particularly if this could be independently confirmed, because we are in a territory where religious wishes take precedence to scientific facts.

J, #246:
Steen,
- I go back to Dr. Zugibe, from above, p 217 this time. Here he says that the blood protected the Shroud from the image formation.

J, #232:
- Also, it is claimed that the blood is appropriately arterial or veinous according to the location of the wound -- and, science didn't know there was a difference between the two until a significant time after the Shroud made its first "official" appearance (I can't remember exactly when we discovered the blood difference). So, we have something else that a forger couldn't have inferred from the paintings, and this alleged blood difference on the Shroud would essentially disprove the forgery thesis.


 

J, #195:
Steen,
- In my readings, I've encountered numerous alleged characteristics of the Shroud that seem to contradict the radio-carbon dating (among them, how the Shroud differs from pictorial tradition) but according to modern science, seem to have gotten it right. You mentioned nails in the wrists, and I think that the same goes for a nail through the feet.
- Then, looking quickly, there's
1) Arterial vs veinous blood in the right places.
2) The color of the blood. From http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers...teRagesOn.html. "SI" is the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. "Marino" is Joseph Marino, a long time Shroud researcher.
- SI:"Actually, two tests of dubious scientific merit that purported to prove the 'blood' genuine were not supported by batteries of analyses conducted by internationally known forensic serologists. Indeed the stains, which were unnaturally "picturelike" and suspiciously still-red, were conclusively proved to be red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."
- Marino: Dr. Alan Adler of Western Connecticut State University, an expert in the heme and porphyrin components of human blood and the late Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute, both members of STURP, authored several peer-review scientific papers that cite no less than 12 different tests that indicate that there is blood on the Shroud (Applied Optics, Vol. 19, no. 16-August 14, 1980 and Canadian Society Forensic Journal, Vol. 14, no. 3, 1981). Regarding the "suspiciously still-red" red blood, Dr. Adler says that this is what would actually happen to a man who had undergone torture and crucifixion (the actual scientific explanation is complicated and unnecessary here) (cited in Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, New York: Free Press, 1998, pg. 89). Italian scientists have also asserted that the Shroud contains human blood. The claim that the blood is red ocher and vermilion tempera paint has not been "conclusively proved," and is, in fact, contested by numerous scientists and researchers.

St, #199:
In my opinion, a serious forger would simply use real blood. If it could be proved that it was not blood, a forgery would been proven, but if it is real blood, a forgery would not have been disproved.

J, #232:
- If you need citations, let me know -- but, I think that research has shown that the blood would have had to be placed on the Shroud before the image -- which seems pretty unlikely in a forgery, given the rest of the conditions.
- Also, it is claimed that the blood is appropriately arterial or veinous according to the location of the wound -- and, science didn't know there was a difference between the two until a significant time after the Shroud made its first "official" appearance (I can't remember exactly when we discovered the blood difference). So, we have something else that a forger couldn't have inferred from the paintings, and this alleged blood difference on the Shroud would essentially disprove the forgery thesis.

St, #235:
- Yes, I doubt that this claim is correct. My reading of articles of the difference between arterial and venous blood indicates that the difference is minuscule, and is mainly measured in gas contents that is long gone from blood stains.

J, #246:
- Try this website -- http://www.factsplusfacts.com/pathology.htm. Also, you can just Google, or Bing, "shroud+arterial."

St, #248:
- I just read this website and while it certainly sounds impressive, I also have the feeling that they are not objective, but are looking for things that corroborate the gospels, and ignoring things that do not. Misinterpretations are ripe in such situations. Are there any indications that teams of non-religious forensic experts have taken a look at the shroud too?

 

St, #254:
- ...The best scientists have achieved is to show that the image was not painted, and we know that there are other methods exist to create such an image. We also know that real blood of some form has been used...

 

 

 

 

St, #183:
- It is also interesting that Jesus was stabbed in the chest, because we normally get the impression that the whole idea of crucifying people would be to make them suffer as much as possible. But if it was a regular problem that crucifixion victims were liberated by families and friends, it would be necessary to keep a guard, and perhaps it was also a standard procedure to kill the victim with a stab in the chest when the guard detachment was due to be withdrawn.

J, #219:
- What I've read (multiple times I think, but I don't know where) is that this is how they could make sure that the victim was already dead -- the blood flows differently when the heart isn't beating.

St, #233:
- Yes, the blood flows differently, but it does not separate into blood and "water". You know that, so I wonder why you repeat this stuff.

J, #245:
Steen,
- According to Dr. Zugibe (Zugibe, F.T. 2005. The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry. p 140. New York: M. Evans and Company, Inc.) the water would have been "pleural effusion" caused by the scourging; and the way that the blood on that part of the Shroud had flowed, showed that the victim had already died.
[+1]
...........................................................

 

St, #263:
- Another point that I have been thinking of, is the curious "pooling of blood" on the back image, which is of course consistent with blood flowing out of wounds from a prostrate corpse, but I wonder how much the blood will flow once the heart has stopped beating. The scourge wounds were of course on the back, so gravity would help the process, but I would like to know if your forensic expert mentions this heavy flow of blood as being expected - or if he uncritically notes it as another evidence for Jesus.

Fl (Flower), #264:
- It's a liquid, and the juices will seep from a corpse. Imagine the seepage from a steak, and scale it to 70 kilos, then leave it on the kitchen table for a couple of days.... YUCK!

St, #265:
- But is blood not supposed to clot when the flow is not too overwhelming? My question is if this is the case with scourge wounds.
- The steak comparison is not appropriate, because the corpse is covered by the skin, and the steak is not.

OM, #266:
- I would think the majority of blood seepage would be from the spear wound in his side, especially if it hit a artery.
- Blood pressure from the heart pumping would push the blood out from these wounds, once it stopped beating it would be reduced to a steady trickle. I imagine a spear wound would be too large for the body to heal over it, especially after death.
- Also gravity, position of the wound, and placement of the corpse. If the wound was more closer to his back and he was placed on his back, then you would expect more blood to pool there due to gravity.

St, #267:
- Precisely. But I would like to see a pathologist examine this in order to determine if it could have been a result of something else (ie fraud), rather than a pathologist looking at this to confirm his belief. In the former case, he might be more interested in the precise amount and distribution, and in the latter, he might just notice it, and cross off yet another piece of evidence for Christ.

 

 

J, #1:
2. History does support a 1 CE origin.

FL, #274:
- 2. No.
- Apart from the bible, there are no sources older than approx 1000 years

J, #280:
- Here's a good place to start: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html.

- THE SUDARIUM CHRISTI - THE FACE CLOTH OF CHRIST
- In the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi, or the Face Cloth of Christ. It is often referred to as the Cloth of Oviedo. Modern studies by the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (Dr. Jose Villalain, Jaime Izquierdo and Guillermo Heras of the University of Valencia, as noted by Oviedo scholar Mark Guscin) using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy have demonstrated that this Cloth, along with the Shroud of Turin, both touched the same face. Tradition and historical information (now supported by contemporary scientific research) support the belief of millions of people that the face touched by both cloths was that of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The two cloths are believed to have touched the same face at different points in the burial process. The Oviedo Cloth was placed around the head from the time death occurred on the Cross till the body was covered by the Shroud in the Garden Tomb. Then it was removed and placed to one side (John 20:7). Mark Guscin notes that the practice of covering the face is referenced in the Talmud (Moed Katan 27a). He adds that Rabbi Alfred Kolatch in NY talks of the Kevod Ha-Met or "respect for the dead" as the reason for covering the head. Rabbi Michael Tuktzinsky of Jerusalem in his Sefer Gesher Cha'yim (Volume 1, Chapter 3, 1911) offers as a reason that it is a hardship for onlookers to gaze on the face of a dead person.
- The Sudarium Christi is a poor quality linen cloth, like a handkerchief, measuring 84 x 53 centimeters. Unlike the Shroud of Turin, it does not have an image. However, it does have bloodstains and serum stains from pulmonary edema fluid which match the blood and serum patterns and blood type (AB) of the Shroud of Turin. The length of the nose on both cloths is 8 centimeters (3 inches). Pollen grains found on the Cloth of Oviedo by Dr. Max Frei in 1973 and 1978 and studied also by Monsignor Giulio Ricci match pollen grains found on the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Uri Baruch (expert palynologist from the Israel Antiquities Authority) has indicated that one of these pollen matches is Gundelia tournefortii - a thorn/thistle bush that is indigenous to the Holy Land. Dr. Avinoam Danin (botanist and expert on the flora of the Holy Land who teaches at Hebrew University in Jerusalem) reports that Gundelia tournefortii serves as a "geographic and calendar indicator" that the origin or provenance of the cloths is the Holy Land.
- The Sudarium Christi has a well-documented history. One source traces the cloth back as far as 570 AD. Pelayo, Bishop of Oviedo in the 1100's, noted in his Chronicles that the Oviedo Cloth left Jerusalem in 614 AD in the face of the Persian attack led by King Chosroes II, and made its way across North Africa to Spain. It was transported to Oviedo in a silver ark (large box) along with many other sacred relics. The fact that both cloths touched the same face, and that the Oviedo Cloth can be traced historically to a date as early as 570 AD are further proof that the Carbon-14 dating of the Shroud to between 1260 -1390 AD cannot be correct. Those wishing to read the work of Oviedo scholar Mark Guscin may read The Oviedo Cloth - The Luttenworth Press 1998, Cambridge, CT. ISBN 07188-2985-9...

 

 

 

Taken from http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4157

Blood on the Shroud? (*** = last word on sub-issue, or needs a response) (2/20/11)

 

1. Convinces no one else?

Bigfield:
- Jabba,
...Also, I would like to know your answer to this: Do you really think that Jesus was once wrapped in the Shroud of Turin? Furthermore, is this belief based on the evidence, or just wishful thinking?

Jabba:
- BF,
- I do tend to believe (~90%?) that the Biblical Jesus was, in fact, covered by the Shroud of Turin.
- Obviously, I think that this belief is based (mostly) on the evidence.

Bigfield:
- It's not "obvious", Jabba, it's actually mystifying. Why does the evidence convince you but no-one else?

Jabba:
- It hasn't convinced anyone on this forum, but it has convinced a lot of "appropriate" and apparently respected scientists.
- Also (IMO), as I am biased towards believing in the authenticity of the Shroud, everyone else chipping in on this thread (and not being convinced), is biased against believing in its authenticity.
- And note, I am not quite convinced of the Shroud's authenticity, myself.
- I just believe that there is a very high probability that the Shroud is some sort of imprint of a recently tortured and crucified human male -- and not just a painting.
- Then, I believe that there is also a very high probability (not quite as high as my belief just above) that the image on the Shroud is also not some kind of forgery other than a painting.
- And finally, I believe that there is a still very high probability (not quite as high as my second belief just above) that the imprint actually IS that of the Biblical Jesus.***

 

2. Light intolerance and color variance in 'blood stains.'

Bigfield:
- Even a single year of cumulative exposure during public display is an extremely long time for a light-sensitive substance.
- Refer to Adler's article for the comment on bilirubin and methemoglobin, and ask Flower if you want more proof that bilirubin is light intolerant. Since it's an organic substance I think it makes quite a lot of sense.

Jabba:
BF,
- I was familiar with Adler's discussion re the methemoglobin, but opted for a simple (albeit incomplete) answer...
- Note that Adler also talks about the variance in color of the "blood-stains" when closely examined -- seemingly another problem, for a would be forger.***

 


2.a.
Jabba:
Flower,
- Good reference for the "light-intolerance"?***

 

3. Jumper et al.

Bigfield:
- Just focus on getting the following articles:
- Adler, Alan. “The origin and nature of blood on the Turin Shroud” in Turin Shroud - Image of Christ?, William Meacham, ed. (Hong Kong: Turin Shroud Photographic Exhibition Organising Committee, 1987), 57-9.
- Jumper, E.J., A.D. Adler, J.P. Jackson, S.F. Pellicori, J.H. Heller, and J.R. Druzik. “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin” Archaeological Chemistry III, Joseph B. Lambert, ed. (Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 1984), 447-476. Based on a symposium sponsored by the Division of the History of Chemistry at the 184th meeting of the American Chemical Society, 12-17 Sept 1982.

Jabba:
- BF,
- I did get Archeological Chemistry III and read most of the chapter re the blood stains. I tried to scan the most relevant pages, but my scanner doesn't work well on small print -- and I'm only a two-finger typist... I'm now trying to learn how to enlarge the print -- with some success. We'll see.

Jabba:
- I've had a little bit of luck with my scanner, and am now able to put up a reasonable facsimile of the article by Jumper, et al in Archeological Chemistry III. I'm currently trying to clean up the misspellings, but with a little patience, you guys can probably figure out pretty much what it's saying anyway. You can make the attempt at http://messiahornot.com/ShroudBloodJumper.php. I'll clean it up some more.***

 

4. Case Against McCrone

Jabba:
- Steen,
- Can you proffer your current guess (from the reading you've done so far) as to the probability that there is, in fact, blood on the Shroud?

Steen:
- I am not convinced that there is blood on the shroud, mainly because I do not think you have managed to cast sufficient doubt on McCrone.
However, I am open to the possibility that there is blood, which is why I made the comments about the technique the forger could have used.

Jabba:
- In post #77, I tried to summarize the claimed objections to McCrone's work.
http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4157&page=8

Steen:
I know, and as I said, I was not convinced.

Jabba:
- The following (long -- 19 pages, not counting bibliography) article seems to be the best at itemizing McCrone's alleged problems.
http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf

Steen:
It certainly casts doubt on McCrone's conclusions, but the the way David Ford does everything possible to make McCrone appear sinister (right down to "McCrone was never available", but "McCrone eventually returned Heller's calls"), makes me doubt that this article is trying give a correct picture.

Jabba:
- I see your point, but in my opinion, McCrone's disparaging remarks describing his detractors was much worse. Ford's disparaging remarks are quite mild in contrast.
(See below)

 



Steen (repeated):
It certainly casts doubt on McCrone's conclusions, but the the way David Ford does everything possible to make McCrone appear sinister (right down to "McCrone was never available", but "McCrone eventually returned Heller's calls"), makes me doubt that this article is trying give a correct picture.

Jabba:
- But, there must be more than 20 objections in that piece regarding McCrone's methods and findings. Aren't these enough to cast serious doubt upon his conclusion?

Steen:
- Serious doubt? No. The tone and style of this article gives me reason to think that it is not objective.
- Some doubt? Yes.

Jabba:
- But Steen, have you read McCrone's articles?

Steen:
- It seems that I have only read letters from McCrone, but not the actual articles. I have not seen anything that indicates that he was being less objective than Ford. But if you have read articles by him, you will be a better judge than I.

Jabba, #166:
- Don't feel too bad -- I've mostly read letters myself. The two articles I was able to easily find are relatively mild. I know I've read some strident stuff by McCrone, but at this point, I can't swear that they were "articles."
- I'll be back.

Jabba, #174:
- I sent the following email to Microscope Publications:
Hi,
- Is it possible to get copies of Dr. McCrone's 1980 and 1981 articles on the Shroud of Turin?
- Thanks.
- I got the following response:
- Yes, we can get you copies. Because those issues are rare, we cannot sell you full copies of the issue, but we can offer you a scan (color) or photocopy (black and white). You will probably want color to appreciate the images. The cost is $5 per article and you can pay via check or credit card.
- Therese Newman
Microscope Publications
2820 S Michigan Ave
Chicago, IL 60616
Phone: 312-842-7100
Fax: 312-842-1078
E-mail: tnewman@mcri.org
Web: http://mcri.org/home/section/71/publications
New subscribers get special discount rate! Contact me for more information.

Jabba, #176:
- I just called up and ordered the two articles by Dr McCrone.

- I ordered Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin a couple days ago.

Jabba, # 177:
Steen,
- So far, it's slow going.
- Here are a couple of McCrone quotations from what appear to be letters. I don't think that I quoted them before. They're small examples of McCrone's emotional and unscientific wording. I think there's a lot more.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html
- Walter McCrone: 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 CO2 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 Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#sidebar
- Walter McCrone: *Iron oxide (red ochre) as image--neither Adler nor anyone else has shown that 90 percent of the iron is bonded to cellulose and is not present as colored iron oxide. This ludicrous statement is an out-and-out misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone making such a statement is either not a microscopist or is incompetent or lying. The explanation of the shroud image as due to debydrative oxidation of the cellulose is balderdash-absolutely impossible; 99 percent of the iron on the shroud is readily visible to a microscopist x micron-sized red particles of high refractive index bound to the linen with a dried gelatin paint medium.

Steen, #178:
- The letters are informal. I would be more worried if he used this language in his articles.

Jabba, #179:
- Yeah. We'll see...

Jabba, #180:
Steen,
- I'm still looking. Haven't found anything blatant in regard to the use of subjective, emotional and unscientific language by McCrone -- though, I sure think that I've read blatant stuff that I haven't been able to recover so far ... !#$%^&*!...
- Whatever, I have inquired of the Skeptical Inquirer now as to whether or not I can get 3 articles from their spring 82 issue, by McCrone and a couple of associates.
- Otherwise, I'm still waiting for McCrone's book of 96, and his two articles from The Microscope of 80 and 81.

- I'll be back.

Jabba, #181:
Steen,
- I received McCrone's articles from the Microscope. 'Unfortunately,' they're pretty impressive and only slightly subjective -- to the naked eye...
- I'll study them, and get back to you with whatever specifics seem relevant.

Jabba, #185:
- In case anyone is interested, I've added a little to, and have otherwise organized, what I have against McCrone at http://messiahornot.com/shroudBlood2.php.
- This includes a bunch of complaints from Adler, Ford, Rogers and Schwortz, and my correspondence with the current Editor of the Microscope.
- I just received better access to the NY State library, and hope to be able to track down some useful journal articles.
- I'm still waiting for McCrone's book and his articles in the Skeptical Inquirer.

Jabba, #198:
Steen,
- I have not been able to locate more unscientific language from McCrone... I've received all the articles I have asked for, and unless I'm missing something, McCrone does not wax emotionally in them... http://debate.atheist.net/images/smilies/frown.gif
- I have yet to receive his book. I'll let you know his approach there when I get it...

Steen, #201:
- I appreciate your honesty.
- I already pointed out that Ford used language designed to attack McCrone's character in a real scientific article. At the time, you also thought that it would be a good strategy, and you went to look for dirt, but now, when you have not found it, what do you think of McCrone, and Ford? Why do you think Ford went so strongly for the character?

Jabba, #203:
- I still suspect that Ford's attack on McCrone's character is 1) mild, 2) justified and 3) almost unavoidable if you want to tell the whole relevant story...
- I know that my suspicions need much more in the way of "formalized' (I don't know the right word. Hopefully, I will figure it out in the near future.) evidence in order to expect you to take them seriously.
- I'll be working on that on the side as I get back to more direct evidence of there being real, and significant blood on the shroud. In my opinion, if there is a lot of real blood on the Shroud (and, from my readings so far, I'm pretty sure that there is), the case against authenticity takes a mighty blow.
- I appreciate your appreciation. I may be dumb, but I am honest (probably in the 99th percentile).

Jabba, #210
- I finally got McCrone's Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin from Amazon.
- It does seem full of innuendo and sarcasm, but then it is a book rather than an article... I guess that I can't hold a book to quite the same standards as I can an article...
- Anyway, here are just a few of his examples.
1) Speaking of a suggestion by Heller, "These are ridiculous possibilities."
2) "STURP continued their mental distortions and grasping at straws..."
3) "I've seen much better experimentation, scientific reasoning and conclusions as a Judge in High School Science Fairs than Heller's contribution to the 'Shroud' problem"
4) "The STURP scientists have one overriding disadvantage -- they have absolute 'faith' in an authentic Shroud."
5) Speaking of something claimed by Diane Soran (working with Ray Rogers), McCrone says, "This is an asinine idea that Pliny, nearly 2000 years ago, would have laughed at."
- These do seem to go on and on...
- If you want, I can include page numbers and give more examples, but in his book, McCrone seems at least as emotionally tainted as was Ford in his article.

Steenkh, #211:
You said it yourself, one is an informal book, and the other is a formal article. If you feel McCrone's credibility is lower when he is writing informally, then you can understand how we feel about Ford's credibility when we read Ford's article.

 

 

 

Taken from: http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4157

Jabba, #1 (Part III):
- To me, the following (if true, and I assume that it is) reveals a very unscientific attitude on McCrone's part.
- From http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2...en-i-am-right/
- Emails from Walter McCrone, discussed by Joe Marino:

McCrone: You say since the "blood" went on first; this is not so. The body-image was first so that the artist knew where to put the blood-image. There is NO doubt about that. The paint in the blood-image area shows separate applications of red ochre and vermilion. I can’t say which was first by this observation but common sense says the body-image has to be first for an artist to put the "blood" in the right places."
Marino: When I had mentioned the blood going on first, I gave the scientific explanation of why that is believed. Notice that he doesn’t respond to the scientific explanation–he just says it’s not so–but gives no scientific explanation. He just appeals to common sense saying that an artist would have to put the image on first to know where to put the blood. That’s obviously true if the image was forged, which he is assuming. Nickell always writes that "shroudologists" always begin with a conclusion and then work backwards to the evidence. And McCrone is NOT doing that???
McCrone: I did not address many of the points you raised on behalf of Heller and Adler, Piczek, and Jackson because they are meaningless. They represent the will-of-the-wisps they have concocted to rationalize their belief in an authentic Shroud. All of them and Meacham, Frei, Whanger, Garza-Valdes, Wilson, etc., are "red herrings." They cannot be right because the Shroud is a straightforward artist’s painting, no more, no less. It is 100% red ochre, vermilion, and a gelatin base there is no blood on the Shroud. Most of the arguments of these people are based on no known facts but come from their imagination. The observations seemingly based on factual observations (Bollone’s typing of my paint, Garza-Valdes biological contamination, Frei’s pollen, Adler’s positive tests for blood, etc., are either imagination or due to incompetence or deceit; Adler and Frei fall in that category.
McCrone: Everything I have read or heard from Ian Wilson, Max Frei, John Jackson, William Meacham, Alan Adler, Baima Bollone, Alan Whanger, Leoncio Garza-Valdez, et al., is contradicted by my findings. How can I explain how only I could be right and dozens of other "scientists" be wrong? Very simply, none of them are chemical microscopists, small particle microanalysts, nor have they studied the Shroud tapes against a background of familiarity with pigments, media and artist’s paintings. If I am right, then all of their ideas are wrong and I am right.
Marino: Read that last sentence again: “If I am right, then all of their ideas are wrong and I am right.”
- I'll try to get to the Vinland Map next time.

Jabba, #2:
Steen,
- Hope this isn't too long, but it sure seems to reflect what I've perceived (or imagined) in McCrone's tactics. It also comes from http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2...ight/#comments.
And we saw in the emails to Marino, strange tilting-at-windmill responses from McCrone. The Vinland Map may give us a clue, as to why.
In 1965, Yale researchers discovered a map that was known to have been produced at least 50 years before Columbus’ first journey to America. The map, which showed Vinlandia Insula, the Island of Vinland or Newfoundland as it is known today, was part of a small medieval volume, the Tartar Relation. The Tartar Relation had originally been bound together with the Vinland Map and another medieval volume, the Speculum Historiale. Wormhole alignments between the map and both volumes clearly showed that they had been all bound together at one time. The Tartar Relation volume was reliably dated by contemporaneous references to the Katatas people (Mongols) who dominated one end of the Eurasian land mass. There were also references to a certain bishop of Gada and Greenland that further corroborated the dating.
In 1972, Walter McCrone, who would later attempt to debunk the shroud, examined some particles of ink and found titanium anatase, a material scientist discovered in the 1920s. He thus concluded that the map was a recent relic-forgery.
Several people doubted McCrone’s conclusion including George Painter, the curator of ancient documents of the British Museum. In 1985, physicist Thomas Cahill, of the University of California at Davis, analyzed the map using a newly developed process, Particle Induced X-ray Emission, and found only minute traces of titanium anatase, amounts that were consistent with what would be expected in the common green vitoral ink of the fifteenth century.
As with the shroud, McCrone had found the substances that he claimed were there. Indeed they may be there but in amounts too miniscule to support his conclusions.
Yet, myths and doubts about the Vinland Map persist. Why? Because a scientist had proven it was a hoax and PBS television reported the results of McCrone’s findings. There was very little reporting about the Cahill’s later findings at Cal-Davis until 1996.
Then, on February 10, 1996, a symposium was organized by Yale University Press to announce a second edition of “The Vinland Map” published by Yale University Press and authored by R.A. Skelton, T.E. Marston, and G.D. Painter. Many scholars and journalists were invited. It seemed that anyone and everyone ever involved with the Vinland Map was present except Walter McCrone. He had not been invited. The New York Times quoted Wilcomb Washburn of the Smithsonian saying, “I think the evidence is clearly on the side of authenticity.” Cahill reported at the symposium by his trace analysis instrument that the VM ink contained only the trace amounts of titanium characteristic of all medieval maps – “none of the quantities were sufficient to be considered a purposefully added ingredient.”
Walter McCrone was furious. More tilting-at-windmills. Was he trying to defend his solo visual observations against “two different groups of presumably good scientists” or was he claiming that PLM was unjustly being replaced with newer technology? “I hope something can be done,” he writes, “to convince scientists to use the proper technique and instruments to solve today’s analytical problems.” He continued:
Up to now I’ve been able to maintain my equilibrium and even my sense of humor in the face of being ignored or being insulted-one post-card stated “Old man Walter C. McCrone is an incompetent senile old fart who belongs in the nuthouse. That old fraud fudges data on an unprecedented scale [signed] Citizens for Scientific Honesty". . . .
Lately and especially after the recent Yale Symposium, I find it more difficult to see the humor in these situations. From a scientific point-of-view, these two problems were not difficult to solve, especially if one uses PLM and other ultramicro techniques and instruments on tiny particle samples rather than trace analysis techniques on millimeter samples like PIXE, Cahill’s instrument. No one other than McCrone working on these two fakes used light and electron microscopes. Instead, others looked for traces using good but inadequate and inappropriate trace analysis techniques. These are not intended for problems like VM or the Shroud.
I had hoped solving these problems using PLM then using other proper ultramicroanalytical instrumentation for confirmation would help PLM recover its lost position in analytical chemistry. PLM has been cheated out of this recovery and is rapidly sliding into oblivion. This situation is now no longer funny, and I am looking for ways to redress this wrong. It seems to me to be a matter for the attention of the American Academy of Sciences.
If a committee of scientists qualified in the physical methods of ultramicro particle analysis were appointed by the Academy, I am absolutely certain they would decide the VM and the Turin “Shroud” are masterpieces of art. If two different groups of presumably good scientists can be so wrong on the VM and the Shroud, what other important projects they work on may also be wrongly concluded. The situation, highlighted by the VM and Turin “Shroud,” indicates a very serious problem in science today. Far more serious than either the VM and Shroud or any individual scientist, I hope something can be done to convince scientists to use the proper technique and instruments to solve today’s analytical problems.

Steen, #3:
1] It is too long. Is it that difficult for you to summarise what is in a link?
2] I have for some time considered McCrone's handling of the Vinland map problematic.
3]However, this cannot revive my interest in this thread, because you are really stuck with the "invisible patch" and the lack of a second carbon dating. Whether the forger used blood, or pigment is not that interesting in the end

Jabba, #5:
- I numbered your points above for easy reference.
- Re #1: Too late, I realized that's what I should have done... But then, I haven't been able to find a definition for "too long."
- Re #2: At this point, I'm trying to convince you that McCrone is not to be trusted. The Vinland map situation seems to make for another good example of his ingenuous approach to this stuff.
- Re #3:
-- McCrone states categorically, over and over again, that there is no blood on the Shroud.
-- But then IMO, the evidence for blood on the Shroud is overwhelming, and consequently that McCrone is clearly and decisively wrong re one of his basic claims about the Shroud...
-- And then, as far as I can tell, McCrone is the only real Scientist who has studied pieces of the Shroud that has also argued against its authenticity -- except, of course for Damon et al, who really just tell us about their carbon dating research, which happens to be evidence against Shroud authenticity. (In my understanding, they don't say anything about the rest of the evidence, either pro or con. I'll try to look that up.)
-- And then IMO, if we allow that there really is blood on the Shroud -- where they say it is -- we can pretty much prove that the Shroud was not painted. Which should be a crucial foothold in our debate.
-- That's why I think that the blood issue is so important.

 

Jabba, #7:
OhMan,
- This is a follow up to my message to you of 2/6/11 (#209) on "The Shroud of Turin Part II."
- http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/c...-news-in-2008/ has a simple description of the latest scientific research regarding the validity of the carbon dating results from 1988.

Steen, #8:
- This article just repeats the same silliness that we have seen before about the "invisible" patch. There is absolutely nothing new here.
- The idea that somebody for some unknown reason should have gone to the length of splicing each single thread with a thread of another material woven in the exact same fashion so that the patch is completely invisible is just ludicrous! Can anybody refer to other materials where this has been done?

From Jabba, #11:
- It's problematic for me to try to deal with two issues at a time (I'm a failure at multi-tasking) -- however, I'll try to do it anyway. (I had wanted to focus exclusively on the blood issue for now.)

Steen, #13:
- 1] How many years would you spend on the blood issue before moving to other topics? 2] Nothing new is going to appear any more, until new samples can be taken. 3] And, as we pointed out, a forger could have used blood (I would have done so), 4] and if it was blood, then it is really only of no interest if you want to determine if it is a forgery or not.
-5) But I can give you this: I am undecided, but probably leaning towards blood, rather than pigment. 6) Now what?

Jabba, #15:
- Again, I've numbered your questions and comments. I would like to respond to each one -- but then, each will take some serious time if I am to answer thoughtfully...
- As you know, I have a model by which I think that debates should be carried out -- if they are to actually "get anywhere." According to that model, I should address only one of your points at a time -- and, if I have multiple points to make about that one point of yours, you should address only one of my points at a time. Etc. That way, theoretically, we should be able to actually finish one small "branching" of this debate, and then go back to the next "loose end." Etc. I think that it's trying to deal with several points at the same time that has the typical debate going around in circles.
- So, that's what I'll try to do here -- address only one at a time.
- Though actually, #'s 4, 5 & 6 can be lumped together -- so, I'll deal with them as if they are one.
- 4) if it was blood, then it is really only of no interest if you want to determine if it is a forgery or not. 5) But I can give you this: I am undecided, but probably leaning towards blood, rather than pigment. 6) Now what?
- From my readings, there are several ways in which the suspicion that there is blood on the Shroud in all the right places undermines the forgery theory.
1) Walter McCrone demanded, over and over again, that there was no blood on the Shroud. And, as far as I can tell, McCrone had been the only actual scientist, actually involved with the Shroud, that claimed it to be a forgery. And then,
2) The apparent blood appears to be arterial and venous in the right places.
3) The apparent blood was apparently on the Shroud before the image.
4) There would be a natural variation of color in the blood, and the apparent blood has such variation.
5) The apparent blood appears to be blood exudate rather than whole blood.
6) The apparent wounds show "serum retraction rings."
7) The shape and direction of apparent blood flow make sense.
8) The clarity of the apparent blood stains makes sense.
9) That the apparent blood is red rather than brown also makes sense.
- If true, #'s 2 through 9 undermine the forgery theory in that the alleged artist wouldn't have been privy to the necessary information, or have any ability to produce the appropriate characteristics.
- I suspect that you will "chafe" at more than one of my claims, but if possible, please address only one of my claims per post.

 


6. Case Against McCrone.


Jabba:
Steen,
- I'm trying to build my case against McCrone over on my website at http://messiahornot.com/shroudBlood2.php.

Steen:
- With new arguments that you have not already been posting here?

Jabba:
- That's the plan. But it will be slow -- and to a large extent, I will be trying to pull old evidence and arguments together into a more coherent form.

Steen:
- In that case it would be a waste of my time. I have not been convinced by your old arguments because they were incoherent, but because they were unconvincing.
- But continue to post here when you have new arguments, or new evidence.

Jabba:
- I've provided a lot of evidence and argument over the last few months, but these have been very disconnected and spread out. Normally, it would be very useful towards trying to resolve a disagreement -- involving such claims -- to pull these claims together and connect them.
- Also, doing so should help us to evaluate the new stuff.
- So, I think you're making a mistake to dismiss the utility of such an effort...
- Whatever, I need to do it for my own sake, and hopefully someone else will find it useful.
- I will try to do as you ask and post here only what I think is new. If I've already said some of it, please let me know -- and also, please let me know where I said it.
- Otherwise, I'll plan on adding up the evidence and arguments on my own site. There, I'll plan on highlighting what I think is new.***

 


7.
Steen (repeated):
It certainly casts doubt on McCrone's conclusions, but the the way David Ford does everything possible to make McCrone appear sinister (right down to "McCrone was never available", but "McCrone eventually returned Heller's calls"), makes me doubt that this article is trying give a correct picture.

Jabba:
- But, there must be more than 20 objections in that piece regarding McCrone's methods and findings. Aren't these enough to cast serious doubt upon his conclusion? (Repeated)
- And besides, if Ford's claims are true, they need to be said -- and off hand, I can't think of a milder way to say them.***

 


8.
Jabba (repeated):
- Steen,
- The following (long -- 19 pages, not counting bibliography) article seems to be the best at itemizing McCrone's alleged problems.
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
- If you wish, I'll try to abstract the different claims and the source material cited.

Steen:
No need to do it, I can read.

 


9.
Jabba:
- Steen,
- I think that I've found something that pretty much confirms my description of the stains above, and eliminates the possibility of blood "spatter."

Steen:
Please note then I modified the word "spatter" to "daubed with a brush", because I noted that it sounded as if there was too much violence involved. I always wanted to point to the possibility of an artist applying the blood to the shroud.

Jabba:
- As far as I know, everyone accepts that there are no "brushstrokes" on the Shroud...

Steen:
Daubing makes no brush strokes. Perhaps I have used the wrong word? I mean the action of applying paint without horizontal movements.***

Jabba:
- You probably used the right word, I just took it the wrong way.

 

10.
Jabba:
- I finally got a copy of Archeological Chemistry III, including the article by Jumper, et al. On page 459, they say: Menisci are clearly visible at the edges of the stains."
- Then, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/menisci
- me·nis·ci... 3. The curved upper surface of a nonturbulent liquid in a container that is concave if the liquid wets the container walls and convex if it does not.
- From what I thought I had read before (that I can't currently find) about "the skin on the edge of the wound lifting up," I'm thinking that the passage I had in mind was really talking about the edges of the clot itself lifting up against the "walls" of the wound, and providing a concave appearance...

Steen:
According to your quote, menisci can be both concave and convex, so the menisci really only shows that the blood was nonturbulent. Besides, I am sure that you cannot determine if the menisci visible on the shroud are of the convex or the concave type. My guess is that the menisci are identified because the blood stains are lighter at the edge.

Jabba:
- I finally found a quote about raised edges on the wounds. On page 26 of The Resurrection of the Shroud, in describing the scourge marks, Mark Antonacci says, "When photographed, then enlarged and studied under a microscope, each mark reveals a slightly depressed center and raised edges." So far, I haven't been able to find his reference, though he claims that it comes through Adler in "The Turin Shroud Lecture."
- He goes on to say, "According to Adler, the upraised edges, indented centers, and serum surrounding the scourge marks illustrates exactly the process of syneresis, which happens when a blood clot forms and then retracts." Later, he quotes Adler as saying, "every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring." These are invisible to the naked eye.
- You might check out pages 2 and 3 of http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf for a more complete discussion.

Steen:
I have seen pigment exhibit the same behaviour when the pigment is not well dissolved in the water or oil. But even if this would not look in exactly the same way, a forgery using blood is still very likely. Actually, if I have made such a forgery I would have used blood instead of paint ...

Jabba:
- But sounds like you're favoring a real blood explanation at this point -- which is what I'm arguing at this point. And, the thing is, if it is real blood, McCrone was wrong.***

 


11. Scoring our debate.

Jabba:
- I'm trying to place our debate into a more coherent form -- so we can see who's getting the last word in the different sub-sub-issues.
- Check out http://messiahornot.com/ShroudBlood3.php.
- So far, I'm winning
.

Flower:
-Anything else would be surprising, given that it is your own website edited by yourself.

-(But how come you have not won anything here? )

Jabba:
Flower,
- Glad you're still paying attention.
- Oh, but I have!
- All I'm doing over there is dividing our discussions over here into sub-sub-issues so we can tell who is winning!
- Take a look.
- http://messiahornot.com/ShroudBlood3.php
***

 


12. My biases.

Jabba, #181 (repeated):
Steen,
- I received McCrone's articles from the Microscope. 'Unfortunately,' they're pretty impressive and only slightly subjective -- to the naked eye...
- I'll study them, and get back to you with whatever specifics seem relevant.

Bigfield, #182:
Just keep in mind, Jabba, that research is about finding the truth, not winning an argument. There is no need to be disappointed when you find evidence which contradicts your beliefs, because it just shows that you have an appalling confirmation bias.

Jabba, #183:
BF,
- Glad you're still watching.
- I certainly am biased. I want to win, and I want the Shroud to be authentic. Unfortunately, I am not able to just turn my biases off -- and, admitting them seems like the next best thing...
- In fact, I came to this particular forum because of my biases. I needed to hear the other side of the story -- I needed to 'hear' intelligible rebuttals to my own evidence and arguments. I really don't want to believe something that isn't true.
- But, even more critical to my particular behavior is that my Christian friends and family want me to "accept Jesus as my Savior." I know that makes absolutely no sense to you guys, and it used to be "Greek" to me as well. But in my searching, I've come to believe that I know what they're talking about, and that it is a real, and life-changing neurological phenomenon -- of which I would probably like to "take advantage," if possible...
- In addition, I am now pretty much convinced that the "born again" concept reflects neurological activity in our holistic hemispheres and is pretty much unfathomable to our analytic hemispheres...
- So currently, I have a strong "feel" for what my "evangelical" Christian associates are talking about -- but then, I think that actually doing it is only semi-voluntary, and requires that the product of two multipliers reaches a certain level. I don't know how to express the required level, but the two multipliers are 1) the strength of the persons belief that Jesus is who he said, or implied, he was, and 2) the "seriousness" of the (surrounding) situation. This neurological phenomenon may be impossible (at least, for an adult) if one's situation is hunky-dory.
- And, since I've had a pretty easy life -- and am also relatively analytic -- in order for me to actually "take Jesus as my Savior," I need to really believe that he is who he said he is. My "belief in Jesus" would have to be especially strong in order for me to actually "accept Him as my Savior."
- And, I have my doubts...
- That's why I came here. In order to make actually "accept Jesus," I need to face up to my doubts.
- Back to my biases.
- I'm probably as conscious of the a-rational pitfalls of argument as is most anyone -- and clearly, all of us humans are subject to such things. I've actually written several "treatises" on the issue.
- If you're interested, this is where one of them begins: http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php.
- I'll be back.

bigfield, #184:
Jabba,
- if you can't let go of your crippling confirmation bias, and analyse the evidence with a clear head, then this entire business is a waste of everyone's time.
- Only in a setting with third party observers/judges--such as a criminal trial or a debate--is it appropriate to have a closed mind focused only on winning.
- If you can't handle the possibility that the Shroud is a fake, and therefore refuse to accept this conclusion, then stop your research right now and stop trying to convince everyone else that you give a damn about the facts.***.

 

 

From http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=4469

My most serious unanswered claims.


J, #19:
- So anyway, I think that the ‘blood’ sub-issue is a critical one.
- Surely, if the apparent blood can be shown not to be real blood, I lose. If instead, the apparent blood is shown to be real blood, I wouldn’t automatically win, but (in my opinion), I would take a giant step in the right direction – to me, such a conclusion would host a bunch of serious, “friendly” implications…

- And for the moment (allowing that my memory isn’t that good and that I still have a long way to go in reviewing the ‘blood’ sub-issue), some of my most serious claims regarding the ‘blood’ have been left unanswered. For instance:
1) There appear to be serum retraction rings around the ‘blood’ stains.
2) The ‘blood’ has soaked through the whole cloth, whereas the image is extremely superficial.
3) The ‘blood’ was on the cloth before the image.
4) There is a second vague image on the back of the cloth, with no indication of seepage between the two sides.
5) The blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo seem to match up perfectly with the face on the Shroud.
- These are all serious indications that the apparent blood on the Shroud is real blood.
6) Only one scientist with actual access to the Shroud, or to sticky tapes taken from the Shroud, has claimed that the apparent blood is not real blood – whereas, numerous other scientists with access (many of whom claimed to be skeptics at the beginning of their research) have now claimed that it is real blood.

St, #20:
It is true that if it can be shown that the blood is not real, it would be a show-stopper, but if it is real blood, I see no particular advantage for you. After all, it just means that real blood has been used for the painting, which is not a big deal.

J, #21:
Steen,
- But how do you account for 1 through 6 above? Take one at a time if you prefer. [+1]

 

 

J, #19(again -- in part):
1) There appear to be serum retraction rings around the ‘blood’ stains.
2) The ‘blood’ has soaked through the whole cloth, whereas the image is extremely superficial.
3) The ‘blood’ was on the cloth before the image.
4) There is a second vague image on the back of the cloth, with no indication of seepage between the two sides.
5) The blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo seem to match up perfectly with the face on the Shroud.
- These are all serious indications that the apparent blood on the Shroud is real blood.
6) Only one scientist with actual access to the Shroud, or to sticky tapes taken from the Shroud, has claimed that the apparent blood is not real blood – whereas, numerous other scientists with access (many of whom claimed to be skeptics at the beginning of their research) have now claimed that it is real blood.

BF, #22:
FWIW I was convinced of the presence of real blood (or at least, exudate) by spectroscopic analysis by Adler. This additional evidence seems unnecessary.

J, #23:
BF,
- Yeah. For the moment, I'll just give "loose," and superficial answers. In-depth answers will take awhile. You might let me know the superficial answer upon which you'd like me to elaborate first... "Elaboration" includes citations.
1) There appear to be serum retraction rings around the ‘blood’ stains.
- These are appropriate, but invisible to the naked eye, scientifically unknown in the 14th century and involving a convexing of the skin around the wound -- seemingly impossible for an artist to reproduce effectively, especially in the 14th century. These just about had to be produced by real wounds, and they were all over the body.
2) The ‘blood’ has soaked through the whole cloth, whereas the image is extremely superficial.
- Mainly, this just about proves that the image and stains were not produced by the same mechanism -- which the one involved scientist (Dr. Walter McCrone) who consistently claimed that the stains were not blood (until his death), claimed that they were (produced by the same mechanism)...
3) The ‘blood’ was on the cloth before the image.
- That makes sense only under the authenticity theory cause an artist would have a hell of a time doing the stains first and then fashioning a body around them. Apparently, McCrone didn't realize to what extent it had been shown that the stains were on first, cause he kept saying what I just said about such a possibility.
4) There is a second vague image on the back of the cloth, with no indication of seepage between the two sides.
- Again, this just shows pretty conclusively that the stains and the image were not created by the same mechanism.
5) The blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo seem to match up perfectly with the face on the Shroud.
- No one seems to doubt that the stains on the Sudarium were blood; the Sudarium is said to be the "napkin" that would have been placed on the decedent's head on his way from the cross to burial and then removed; and the recorded history of the Sudarium goes back to long before the 14th century -- maybe, the 6th century.
- I guess that's it for now. [+5]

Reply With Quote