|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 30, 2015 22:09:14 GMT
Hello UnkleE, I clearly weigh the arguments differently, but I won't fully repeat them (type of weave, problematic projection, Biblical evidence for linen straps) since that post is still up. My remarks and questions are specific to only a few lines: The work by McCrone on blood vs paint, so much relied upon by sceptics, seems to not to have been as good as first thought. The case for there being blood on the shroud looks pretty good, with some experts claiming to distinguish venal and arterial blood and identify blood type. Could you give a reference for your source on this? It is completely new to me. The argument that the radiocarbon testing was done on a well-concealed patch seems bizarre - how could anyone be so incompetent? But it ought to be able to be settled very easily, yet apparently it hasn't. As long as this isn't verified or falsified publicly, the question will remain. It hasn't happened because some church authorities would have to approve a test. They apparently haven't done so since and they even scaled back the original experiment at the time. I suppose that was out of concern for the relic. Nonetheless, it is verifiable with a microscope if it was from the patch. It seems that it wasn't. A plausible case for doubts about the carbon dating therefore remains - based on vanillin tests (admittedly done in a problematic way and therefore questionable), infra red spectroscopy and pollen samples. Aren't those very controversial techniques for dating? I don't see why those would present evidence at all. The literature by the 'believers' seems much better written than much of the reports by sceptics, who often sound arrogant and biased (not saying they are, just saying how they read). I didn't notice that at all in the Nature article. That was sceptic and it was not out of tone in any way. Or do you mean on-line articles by sceptics (as in non-theists)?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 30, 2015 23:17:39 GMT
Could you give a reference for your source on this? It is completely new to me. Søvik's Excursus devotes 16 pages to the question of the blood, and looks at papers by both sides, including Heller & Adler, Heimburger (for blood) and McCrone, Nickell (against blood) - you can see the references there. I have also looked at papers by Pearse and 'Shroud University' ( you can find references here). The paper by Pearse (who has a Ph.D. in Microbiology & Immunology) is pretty detailed and technical, and convincing to me at any rate. He concludes: "In summary, the preponderance of current scientific evidence indicates that: (i) there is blood on the Shroud of Turin; (ii) the blood is of primate, i.e. human origin; and (iii) the blood type is most likely AB as determined by forward typing methods, specifically mixed agglutination and immunohistochemistry techniques. Expression of the Rh factor (AB positive or AB negative) remains to be determined." THis is directly opposed to McCrone's findings. But these questions get very murky because (i) both sides make some contradictory claims on matters that ought to be matters of fact, and (ii) sometimes things get personal and a little nasty. The sceptics argue that the believers find what they are looking for, and sometimes the believers argue the same. McCrone is one of those cases. Søvik discusses this in a way that is worth quoting in full (I have removed reference numbers), remembering he is a neutral observer, not a "shroudie": "It may seem strange that such different interpretations arise, and even opposite claims from McCrone on the one side, and Heller and Adler on the other side. This may lead one to ask if there is something about the person behind the claims that make them so different. One can quickly think that it is those that think the Shroud is real that have an agenda to prove their belief. But remember that Adler is a Jew who does not believe in Jesus’ resurrection or that he was the Messiah. Heller and Adler write objectively and thoroughly in peer-reviewed journals. However, one is struck by some special characteristics when reading McCrone’s book. He is very fond of his light microscope, which he brags about many times. He said that he felt old-fashioned and outdated when the new electronic microscopes started operating, and he wanted to show the world that the light microscope could reveal that the Shroud is a forgery. So he let none of his colleagues with electronic microscopes examine the fibers from the Shroud before he was finished with the first two articles, because he wanted to solve the riddle with the light microscope and show that the Shroud was fake. This he combines with comparing himself to Galileo Galilei several times. He writes a long passage without footnotes, with clichés and erroneous prejudices about how the Church has suppressed science, for example that the Church decided that the earth was flat. But then there was one man who dared to stand up against the Church, Galileo Galilei, and then there was no one who dared again before 1980 — which is when McCrone wrote his article about the Shroud of Turin. He also writes that STURP’s results are a mix of cheating and incompetence; he calls the STURP members “scientists” in quotation marks and on the outside of the book he calls them “shroudies”; and he says that Dr. Baima Bollone has a fitting name, to name a few prejudices. Now, it is not people’s motives that decide what is correct about the Shroud of Turin. It is the arguments that must decide. But at times personal information is relevant. For example, Heimburger and Ford show that McCrone changes his opinion many times on the nature of the particles on the Shroud. This is relevant because it says something about McCrone’s ability to identify particles visually through his microscope, and most of McCrone’s findings are based on visual identification."It hasn't happened because some church authorities would have to approve a test. They apparently haven't done so since and they even scaled back the original experiment at the time. I suppose that was out of concern for the relic. Nonetheless, it is verifiable with a microscope if it was from the patch. It seems that it wasn't. That was my point. It doesn't require another test, initially, just a very accurate and expert visual examination. If that shows a patch, that settles it. If it doesn't, then a test might be needed. But I haven't seen anything definitive on that. Aren't those very controversial techniques for dating? I don't see why those would present evidence at all. Clearly radiocarbon dating is the preferred test. But there have been enough doubts about the radiocarbon tests (are they accurate for this? the alleged patch, the vanillan, and the infra red) that, although they are all of lesser value, cumulatively they add to a significant doubt. Nevertheless, I concluded "the radiocarbon dating remains a strong piece of evidence". I didn't notice that at all in the Nature article. That was sceptic and it was not out of tone in any way. Or do you mean on-line articles by sceptics (as in non-theists)? No, I am referring to a few of the papers quoted. There is the McCrone papers which Søvik references in my quote above. Then there is the Schafersman paper, which uses language like “pseudoscientific”, “hopelessly incompetent” and “unscientific, nonsense-mongering” and whose tone (read it for yourself) is very scornful and patronising. I haven't found anything like that in serious papers on the "believing" side, although I don't doubt there is some out there on some of the "fan" sites. As I said, I am still somewhat sceptical, but a claim that the shroud is first century should be able to be settled, even if the claim that it is from Jesus cannot.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 1, 2015 9:01:05 GMT
I think the situation regarding the shroud has changed over the last decade or two. Really? I've3 engaged with rabid Shroudies several times in that period and have been consistently underwhelmed by their constant recycling of the same debunked nonsense. Because, to anyone without an emotionally-driven agenda, that settled the matter. Along with the iconographical evidence and the documents from the Middle Ages TELLING US it's a fake, the dating makes it perfectly clear to any objective person that it's a fake. Except when we look at the claims about why they are "problematic" we get the usual Shroudie smoke and mirrors game. For example: Utter nonsense. What the Shroudie material always skips around is the fact that this artefact has spent centuries being left wide open to cross-contamination, so even if what they found does have some blood associated with it, the problem is whose blood and when it found its way onto the Shroud? The supposed "blood stains", however, are clearly not blood since they are too red, not black as actual ancient blood should be. The gibberish that it is "Type AB' blood is even more problematic, considering this blood type was unknown amongst first century Jews. Type B blood entered Europe via Asia, probably around 700 AD and Type AB is found nowhere at all until it turns up in Hungary around 1500. But here we have a Jew with this rare and quite modern blood type a millennium and a half earlier? It must be a miracle! It has, but the Shroudies just pretend it hasn't. The samples taken for the RC testing were carefully selected from areas that were clearly free of patches or any hint of a patch. The Shroudies like to invoke "invisible mending", which is another of their hopeful gambits - such mending is only "invisible" from the front: even a non-expert could spot it from the back. Even the Wki article tells you how pathetic this claim is: "In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition." "Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (de) is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has written that it is possible to repair a coarsely woven fabric in such a way as to be invisible, if the damage was not too severe and the original warp threads are still present, but that it is never possible to repair a fine fabric in a way which would be truly invisible, as the repair will always be "unequivocally visible on the reverse of the fabric." She criticized the theory that the C14 tests were done on an invisible patch as "wishful thinking". She states that Gabriel Vial, a textile expert who was present when the sample was taken, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth, and that "neither on the front nor on the back of the whole cloth is the slightest hint of a mending operation, a patch or some kind of reinforcing darning, to be found."[82] In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article with a textile expert in that journal. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon dating exercise, and found no evidence of a repair, nor of any dyes or other treatments. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material" And without any recourse to this "patch" fantasy, pretty much every objection to the dating collapses in a heap. It is not a remotely "plausible" case at all. The claims about vanillin are not just "questionable" and are more than "problematic", I have no idea how the fanciful interpretations of the infra red spectroscopy are meant to be relevant here and the idea that any pollen found on an object that was repeatedly exhibited uncovered to thousands of pilgrims, including some that were returning from the Holy Land, for centuries could mean anything at all is plain stupid. The True Believers take their kooky idea more seriously than everyone else? Gosh.
|
|
|
Post by domics on Jul 1, 2015 9:49:18 GMT
The gibberish that it is "Type AB' blood is even more problematic, considering this blood type was unknown amongst first century Jews. Type B blood entered Europe via Asia, probably around 700 AD and Type AB is found nowhere at all until it turns up in Hungary around 1500. But here we have a Jew with this rare and quite modern blood type a millennium and a half earlier? It must be a miracle! O'Neill, please, do you really know the source of this information on the 'modernity' of Type AB?
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 1, 2015 10:44:02 GMT
The gibberish that it is "Type AB' blood is even more problematic, considering this blood type was unknown amongst first century Jews. Type B blood entered Europe via Asia, probably around 700 AD and Type AB is found nowhere at all until it turns up in Hungary around 1500. But here we have a Jew with this rare and quite modern blood type a millennium and a half earlier? It must be a miracle! O'Neill, please, do you really know the source of this information on the 'modernity' of Type AB? I'm interested to hear about this as well
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 1, 2015 12:13:31 GMT
O'Neill, please, do you really know the source of this information on the 'modernity' of Type AB? I'm interested to hear about this as well "Type AB History Type AB blood is rare – it’s found in less than five percent of the population. And it is the newest of the blood types. Until ten or twelve centuries ago, there was no Type AB blood type. Type AB resulted from the intermingling of Type A with Type B. Type AB is the only blood type whose existence is the result of intermingling rather than environment. Thus, they share both the benefits and the challenges of both Type A and Type B blood types. Type AB has a unique chameleon like quality – depending on the circumstances, this blood type can appropriate the characteristics of each of the other blood types. Type AB is sometimes A-like, sometimes B-like and sometimes a fusion of both. Today, as we look back at this remarkable evolutionary revolution, it is clear that the genetic characteristics of our ancestors live in our blood today." northamericanpharmacal.com/living/2014/03/bloodtype/
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 1, 2015 13:13:23 GMT
O'Neill, please, do you really know the source of this information on the 'modernity' of Type AB? I'm interested to hear about this as well The links I found all traced it back to one Peter J. D'Adamo, a blood-type diet guru. Occurrence of AB blood type seems higher in East Asia, in particular amongst the Ainu. I'd say the discussion about blood type is interesting, but I don't think it is important. As I see it, the evidence is already overwhelming against the shroud - but I'll check UnkleE's references.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 2, 2015 9:07:41 GMT
Hi Tim, thanks for your references on the radiocarbon dating sample. I'll be interested to look them up. But I'm not so sure about some of your blood info. The information I've seen on blood groups says AB has been around for a long time. Kearse (yes, he supports authenticity so you can decide if you're going to let that affect your response) references a number of experts saying its been around in humans for at least 10,000 years and this source says it is found in some of the apes. So it certainly isn't as clear as you said, and your info may be wrong. I don't actually see anywhere else that you've offered any new information, so I remain of the view that much of the sceptical viewpoint is based on McCrone, his work is in some reasonable doubt, and no amount of calling people names changes that. So that means the sceptics really only have the radiocarbon data, which is very significant but under question. I'll be interested to see how the references answer those questions. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Jul 2, 2015 12:29:48 GMT
I'm interested to hear about this as well "Type AB History Type AB blood is rare – it’s found in less than five percent of the population. And it is the newest of the blood types. Until ten or twelve centuries ago, there was no Type AB blood type. Type AB resulted from the intermingling of Type A with Type B. Type AB is the only blood type whose existence is the result of intermingling rather than environment. Thus, they share both the benefits and the challenges of both Type A and Type B blood types. Type AB has a unique chameleon like quality – depending on the circumstances, this blood type can appropriate the characteristics of each of the other blood types. Type AB is sometimes A-like, sometimes B-like and sometimes a fusion of both. Today, as we look back at this remarkable evolutionary revolution, it is clear that the genetic characteristics of our ancestors live in our blood today." northamericanpharmacal.com/living/2014/03/bloodtype/ I'm really sceptical of this. A couple of points: Dr. Adamo is a Naturopath, and he begins by saying "Type O was the first blood type." The first is not a confidence builder for me, and the second is wrong - we now know that type A is first and that type O comes from a mutation. It happens that type O gives an advantage in areas where malaria is endemic, and this probably accounts for its being the most common type. Type AB can be produced from one parent of type A and the other of type B, or one parent of type AB and the other of either A or B or both parents AB. If both type A and type B exist in a population then you will get a small number of people with type AB. Unless you are going to claim that type A was absent from the population(s) in which type B was historically common then it doesn't seem possible that type AB is recent. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 2, 2015 14:28:18 GMT
I'm really sceptical of this. A couple of points: Dr. Adamo is a Naturopath, and he begins by saying "Type O was the first blood type." The first is not a confidence builder for me, and the second is wrong - we now know that type A is first and that type O comes from a mutation. Correct. The A allele can be affected by a single point mutation that creates a stop codon in the middle of the gene; the subsequent half-made protein is degraded by the cell. Ultimately has very little bearing on the Shroud issue, but interesting anyway!
|
|
|
Post by domics on Jul 3, 2015 7:56:18 GMT
Type AB blood is rare – it’s found in less than five percent of the population. And it is the newest of the blood types. Until ten or twelve centuries ago, there was no Type AB blood type. Type AB resulted from the intermingling of Type A with Type B. Type AB is the only blood type whose existence is the result of intermingling rather than environment. Thus, they share both the benefits and the challenges of both Type A and Type B blood types. Type AB has a unique chameleon like quality – depending on the circumstances, this blood type can appropriate the characteristics of each of the other blood types. Type AB is sometimes A-like, sometimes B-like and sometimes a fusion of both. Today, as we look back at this remarkable evolutionary revolution, it is clear that the genetic characteristics of our ancestors live in our blood today." northamericanpharmacal.com/living/2014/03/bloodtype/ here in fact, your source is a naturopath without any scientific credentials. For a scholarly critic of his 'theories' you can read this: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P2gHUoEjihsJ:https://ojs.library.dal.ca/nsis/article/viewFile/nsis43-1thiemann/3341+&cd=1&hl=it&ct=clnk&gl=it
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jul 27, 2015 3:07:20 GMT
this artefact has spent centuries being left wide open to cross-contamination
So this screws up radiocarbon dating?
To me, the most intriguing thing is the utter disconnect of the Shroud image from any Western artistic tradition. Its appearance would have been anything but convincing to the medievals whom we must suppose were its targets. They didn't use the same conventions for viewing images as we do today. And no one, evidently, painted anything ever again using the same technique. The other oddity is that it appears to show nail wounds in the wrists, which we now know was standard practice; but all images of the Crucifixion from the time when they began to be portrayed show the nails in the palms. This would have struck medieval viewers as wrong.
|
|