Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Blood stains found on Turin Shroud


seeder

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The thing I find most interesting about the shroud is that after all this time it still has everyone stumped.  If it is truly a relic of Jesus' burial then it was produced by a miracle and miracles by definition are beyond the realm of science.  But if it is the product of a medieval artist it should have been easily and absolutely proven to be a fake.  Having hordes of scientists and years of testing with the latest techniques being baffled by some unknown artist with crude materials is almost a miracle in itself.  I notice the reliance on belief by both sides.  Some believe it's a forgery and some believe it is genuine because no one really knows.  It remains unexplainable.  People focus on the materials and microscopic analysis but ignore things like the photo negative effect and 3D projections from the image.  Regardless of when or who or what it is, how does anyone explain that?  Personally I hope it remains a mystery.  It's the allure of the mysterious that brought each of us to this site at one time or another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussions about the authenticity of the Shroud periodically appear in the news but it seems to me that it is completely unimportant for сhristians and the teaching of Christ is much more important.Maybe some people are afraid that if the shroud is recognized as a fake, then it will cast a shadow on Christ or dethrone him as a historical person but you should not be afraid of this because Christ left such a strong mark on history that would shake faith in him is hardly possible at the present time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The thing I find most interesting about the shroud is that after all this time it still has everyone stumped.  If it is truly a relic of Jesus' burial then it was produced by a miracle and miracles by definition are beyond the realm of science.  But if it is the product of a medieval artist it should have been easily and absolutely proven to be a fake.  Having hordes of scientists and years of testing with the latest techniques being baffled by some unknown artist with crude materials is almost a miracle in itself.  I notice the reliance on belief by both sides.  Some believe it's a forgery and some believe it is genuine because no one really knows.  It remains unexplainable.  People focus on the materials and microscopic analysis but ignore things like the photo negative effect and 3D projections from the image.  Regardless of when or who or what it is, how does anyone explain that?  Personally I hope it remains a mystery.  It's the allure of the mysterious that brought each of us to this site at one time or another.

Hand picked scientists. Which set's off alarms to me. On top of the fact that the person on the Shroud looks like, and is built like a Frankish knight. Not a little Palestinian pacifist that wandered around on foot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2017 at 3:16 PM, jarjarbinks said:

So, do you think that Jesus's ressurection was true and he would be back by cloning ?

If this thing is from Medieval times jesus is irrevelant at this point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Hand picked scientists. Which set's off alarms to me. On top of the fact that the person on the Shroud looks like, and is built like a Frankish knight. Not a little Palestinian pacifist that wandered around on foot.

I'm certainly no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't contain any physical description of Jesus.  There's no reason to think that people of his time didn't run the gamut of physical types.  Even pacifists come in all shapes and sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I'm certainly no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't contain any physical description of Jesus.  There's no reason to think that people of his time didn't run the gamut of physical types.  Even pacifists come in all shapes and sizes.

If some Jewish accounts are true and his father was Sarmatian Laeti he could of looked like that. But generally the Jews didn't mix with Iranians or Italics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The thing I find most interesting about the shroud is that after all this time it still has everyone stumped.  If it is truly a relic of Jesus' burial then it was produced by a miracle and miracles by definition are beyond the realm of science.  But if it is the product of a medieval artist it should have been easily and absolutely proven to be a fake.  Having hordes of scientists and years of testing with the latest techniques being baffled by some unknown artist with crude materials is almost a miracle in itself.  I notice the reliance on belief by both sides.  Some believe it's a forgery and some believe it is genuine because no one really knows.  It remains unexplainable.  People focus on the materials and microscopic analysis but ignore things like the photo negative effect and 3D projections from the image.  Regardless of when or who or what it is, how does anyone explain that?  Personally I hope it remains a mystery.  It's the allure of the mysterious that brought each of us to this site at one time or another.

It doesn't have "everyone stumped." The only ones stumped are the ones who want to be, and they self-select to read the various fringe crap that repeats the lie that it's mysterious.

Real historians don't waste their time on it because it's either a pious or deliberate fraud. Somewhere not long ago, someone made one of their own, practically indistinguishable from the original, using known medieval techniques. The fringe press ignored it, and it was buried on page nine of real news outlets because it was of relevance only to the tinfoil hat brigade. 

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

It doesn't have "everyone stumped." The only ones stumped are the ones who want to be, and they self-select to read the various fringe crap that repeats the lie that it's mysterious.

Real historians don't waste their time on it because it's either a pious or deliberate fraud. Somewhere not long ago, someone made one of their own, practically indistinguishable from the original, using known medieval techniques. The fringe press ignored it, and it was buried on page nine of real news outlets because it was of relevance only to the tinfoil hat brigade. 

--Jaylemurph 

Art forgers have made copies of famous works for centuries, but that doesn't prove anything about the original.  If the only people still stumped were those that want to be then surely those that don't want to be would have produced definitive proof by now that it is a fake.  Since no one has been able to prove their case on either side it led me to assume that everyone is stumped.  I'll amend that to say everyone but you, but I have to wonder how you are so aware of something that "was of relevance only to the tinfoil hat brigade."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Art forgers have made copies of famous works for centuries, but that doesn't prove anything about the original.  If the only people still stumped were those that want to be then surely those that don't want to be would have produced definitive proof by now that it is a fake.  Since no one has been able to prove their case on either side it led me to assume that everyone is stumped.  I'll amend that to say everyone but you, but I have to wonder how you are so aware of something that "was of relevance only to the tinfoil hat brigade."

Because if there's one thing morons want to talk about with medieval historians, it's the Shroud of Turin.

QED.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Because if there's one thing morons want to talk about with medieval historians, it's the Shroud of Turin.

QED.

--Jaylemurph

Are you saying that the participants in this thread are all morons?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Are you saying that the participants in this thread are all morons?

No, just the one(s) who revived a thread that's been dead for years for no better reason that to waylay us with their enlightened opinion and insist on the incredible mystery of the shroud. You know, since there was palpable previous interest in the issue.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I look at it (again... haven't been that interested in it), what strikes me is that it looks like a rubbing of a gravestone.  Remember when those were popular?  And my mind interprets it as art -- the arms are the wrong proportion (though perfect for medieval art) and the hands are definitely wrong.  The thick lines on either side of the body would fit the edges of a coffin lid.

 

Shroud%20of%20Turin%20posfronthd%20(2).j

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.