Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
seeder

Blood stains found on Turin Shroud

62 posts in this topic

17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I have read about the cleaning and such that was conducted, but I didn't read that they specifically looked to see if there was medieval reweaving done. They only looked to see if the fabric was undamaged. I've read of several medieval fabric experts who have stated that such a task would have been within their abilities, but that they do not have any actual examples. 

The cleaning involved the inspection of the fibers and the material was seen to be consistent, not damaged or altered.

This invisible weaving claim was dreamed up by those that were unhappy with the radiocarbon dating. They still have not shown a single example of a repair which is undetectable even under a microscope.

I already provided this link.

http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

Quote

In his paper, Ray Rogers relies on papers that were neither peer-reviewed nor published in legitimate scientific journals for his belief that the radiocarbon date was taken from a patch ingeniously rewoven into the Shroud linen so that its presence could not be detected. The authors of these papers, M. S. Benford and J. G. Marino, claim that a patch of 16th century material with a weave identical to the Shroud's was undetectably spliced into the 1st century Shroud to give it a 13th century date. But this is nonsense. It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that, according to these authors, their claimed rewoven patch--when combined with "original" Shroud cloth in the proportions subjectively determined by unnamed "textile experts" looking at photographs!--just happens to give an early 14th century date, the same as the date actually measured by radiocarbon dating! Amazing. But in fact the mixture of 16th and 1st century cloth would give a date much younger than the 14th century (about 7th century). The date obtained by the separate university radiocarbon labs exactly matches the date obtained by independent historical analysis, i.e. the early 14th century date when the Shroud first appeared and is believed by Shroud skeptics to be created by a late medieval artist, thus mutually supporting both dates. Benford and Marino submitted their ridiculous speculations in a paper to the scientific journal Radiocarbon, but it was justifiably rejected after peer review. Now, Rogers uses the same mistaken and incompetent speculations to support his conclusions in a paper that was published in a different scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta. I conclude that peer review failed this time for this journal.

Here is another discussion on repair of fabrics and the shroud.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
28 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Maybe I missed it, but what do people think about the University of Padua testing?

http://www.datingtheshroud.com/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

I mentioned Fanti in post #37

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/309641-blood-stains-found-on-turin-shroud/?do=findComment&comment=6180878

Quote

The latest find of blood was done by the same Fanti with the dubious date. The question of course is whether or not the blood came later, that is after the shroud was found in the 1300s.

Remember that there have been many shrouds and this shroud was boiled in water and also possibly boiled in oil to test it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with Fanti's work is that the material he used in the dating is of questionable origin. It seems to be from material collected by a vacuum cleaner. Not clear what he dated. Is Fanti plagued by the same invisible weave problem? Are his dating methods legitimate? He put his material into a book, not a peer reviewed journal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

According to a review of Fanti's book posted here we learn

https://shroudstory.com/2013/04/04/a-critical-review-of-giulio-fantis-new-book-unreliable-results-because-of-inadequacy-of-methods/

Quote

Fanti says that he has not found in the literature similar calibration curves for these three methods, and supposes that they have been introduced by him for the first time.

Quote

We see that the three results cover a very wide range, from 300 BC to 400 AD. Considering the bounds of the intervals of confidence, the dates extend further, from 700 BC to 800 AD.

The dispersion would be even greater if Fanti had used his original result for the first series, which was 752 BC ± 400. However here Fanti has made a correction, trying to take into account the effects of the fire of 1532 in which the Shroud was involved, and moved the date from 752 BC to 300 BC. This is based on measurements made on a recent piece of fabric which has been subjected to heating. This correction is somewhat arbitrary. On the one hand it is not known at what temperature and for how long the cloth of the Shroud has been heated by the fire. On the other hand the effects on a new fabric manufactured using modern technology may be different from the effects on the Shroud, also taking into account that the damage triggered by the fire may have worsened over the centuries.

If you search down read the material after this:

Quote

However, there is a more concrete reason to think that the fibers of the Shroud used by Fanti were unsuitable for testing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

So basically you're saying Fanti is a con man? That what he has done isn't really science, but done to confirm a bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So basically you're saying Fanti is a con man? That what he has done isn't really science, but done to confirm a bias?

 I never stated that. I never suggested that. I showed that his work has problems, big problems.

I never suggested he did not do science. The links I used never suggested he did not do science.

Why the con man comment?

I posted that the origin of the material he used in testing is of questionable origin. I also posted that his dating methods were poor. I substantiated those statements with links showing that the material used was collected by a vacuum cleaner and sticky tape. Were these materials from the shroud, the backing, the image areas, the non-image areas, from people handling it in medieval times and later, from dust that settled on the shroud, or other sources? Are the dating methods reliable, or standard, or verified by other labs? Was the data analysis valid?

Why the effort to mischaracterize what I posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The cleaning involved the inspection of the fibers and the material was seen to be consistent, not damaged or altered.

Do you have a good reference for that? That the material was determined to be consistent? 

What I've found is...

Quote

All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material.  The Oxford group cleaned the samples using a vacuum pipette, followed by cleaning in petroleum ether (40° C for 1 h) to remove lipids and candlewax, for example.  Zurich precleaned the sample in an ultrasonic bath.  After these initial cleaning procedures, each laboratory split the samples for further treatment.

Which doesn't necessarily suggest they checked the weave, or consistency, of the cloth.

I did read somewhere that the shroud fragment was held up to see if there were any inconsistencies in the appearance, by backlighting it, and that nothing was seen to be amiss. I'm trying to find that bit again. Maybe that's what you are thinking of?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 I never stated that. I never suggested that. I showed that his work has problems, big problems.

I never suggested he did not do science. The links I used never suggested he did not do science.

Why the con man comment?

I posted that the origin of the material he used in testing is of questionable origin. I also posted that his dating methods were poor. I substantiated those statements with links showing that the material used was collected by a vacuum cleaner and sticky tape. Were these materials from the shroud, the backing, the image areas, the non-image areas, from people handling it in medieval times and later, from dust that settled on the shroud, or other sources? Are the dating methods reliable, or standard, or verified by other labs? Was the data analysis valid?

Why the effort to mischaracterize what I posted?

You very much seemed (to me anyway) to suggest that his findings were... uhhhh... suspect. That would seem to indicate you dismissing his findings as non-scientific and biased. 

Someone who is mischaracterizing their data for bias reasons could be considered a con man.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The back of the shroud was also photographed and it does not show any evidence of alteration which invisible weaving does leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieChecker said:

You very much seemed (to me anyway) to suggest that his findings were... uhhhh... suspect. That would seem to indicate you dismiss his findings are non-scientific and biased. 

Many findings in science are found to as you say "... uhhhh... suspect." That means that the methods were not adequate. That does not mean non-scientific. It certainly can lead to bias.

 Fanti worked with materials that may or not be shroud related. That needs to be pointed out. His dating methods are novel and unverified. that needs to be pointed out. Would we trust radiocarbon dating on its first use? Would we trust beryllium dating on its first use? Would we trust thermoluminescent dating on its first use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Many findings in science are found to as you say "... uhhhh... suspect." That means that the methods were not adequate. That does not mean non-scientific. It certainly can lead to bias.

 Fanti worked with materials that may or not be shroud related. That needs to be pointed out. His dating methods are novel and unverified. that needs to be pointed out. Would we trust radiocarbon dating on its first use? Would we trust beryllium dating on its first use? Would we trust thermoluminescent dating on its first use?

Oh, I agree, to a point. I didn't mean to say Fanti had proven anything, but what had been concluded about his work. The sites I had read, I initially thought he had done another round of C-14 off certified samples, but it turns out the samples were not certified and he didn't do C-14 testing. And thus I learn more on the subject. :tu:

I think calling someone a "con artist" is something I don't take as seriously as you apparently do. If the fellow misrepresented, purposefully, where the samples came from, and how he did his testing, I have no problem calling that the work of a con artist who is trying to create data to support his own bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fanti reports that his analysis is of shroud fibers. Could be. Possibly is. On the other hand the fibers might not be.

You might say he is doing his best when he is not authorized to collect material directly from the shroud.

I think the most glaring example of wishful thinking on the part of believers is the invisible weave. There is no evidence for it and yet they say something to effect of, "See what an expert repair job it was?" If medieval artisans were such experts then why can't they have made this forgery? The repair would have required staining that exactly matches the rest of the cloth and with a weave indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth. And done with materials indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 10:54 AM, eight bits said:

The original article is open access:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487

PLoS ONE is a real journal, peer reviewed, decent impact factor, etc.

I'm not an expert on the shroud, but if it is a shroud, then I wouldn't expect it to have wrapped a healthy person.

Also, "bloodstains" is a bit of an exaggeration, as was the Daily Mail's more measured "stained with" phrase. The particles are too small to see.

If they're blood components, if they come from somebody who was wrapped up in the cloth, if the guy didn't look so European... Lot of if's - but isn't that the way with everything about the historical Jesus?

PLoS ONE is a pay to publish journal with zero credibility. It's a business model that allows anyone to publish any primary research if you want to pay to do it and there is ZERO peer review. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.