Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Nonpareil]

I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.

Filibuster is not a substitute for an actual argument.

 

[abaddon]

Slowvehicle,
- I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.
- If you notice, I tend to respond to posts that are short and not just sarcasm -- your previous post was too long to tackle.
- I'm going to go take a nap, but your next to last post will be first on my agenda.

Given your track record, I would be very dubious about your ability to accurately represent the arguments put forward here on some other website especially since you have a declared and acknowledged bias in the matter.

Furthermore, if, as you claim, you have invited the denizens of said website to participate here and they have declined this indicates to me that they are fully aware that their claims will not stand up to the level of rigorous scrutiny they would find here. Thus they prefer to remain in the echo chamber they have created for themselves.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,

- The points you have made are exactly what I'm looking for. Carbon dating would be in the top layer of sub-issues (maybe, number 1), and you have listed some of the sub-sub issues within the carbon dating sub-issue.

Top layer of sub-issues?

It's not an issue at all, Jabba. The shroud is a fake. The proof is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Why do you insist that there is anything further to discuss?

- Your 6 other points would be listed under "Image."

By whom?

- Also, you have reminded me that you and others have given me similar lists in the past. I'll start looking for them -- but, you (and others) can probably find them faster than can I.

You pretend to earnestly seek an evidence-based solution to your alleged doubts about the authenticity of the Table Cloth and yet remain incapable, after years, of being able to locate that solution within a single thread?

Mad research skillz, Jabba.

- Will you allow me to post your comments over on the Porter blog, if I get your specific approval each time?

- Thanks.

I beg you to post my comments.

 

[Jabba]

(highlighting added for emphasis)

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

This is another of the reasons I oppose your idea that you should serve as "anti-locutor".

There is no "sarcasm" in my "too-long-to-tackle" post. You made multiple misstatements; I addressed them. I encourage you to identify what of my post you, personally, found to be "sarcasm"; failing that, I encourage you to a more particular honesty in the future.

I also answered your question, directly and simply. In what way was my answer inadequate for your consideration?

Slowvehicle,
- Your post was just too long to answer in any kind of a hurry. I will now go back and try to respond to one point at a time.

 

[Akhenaten]

J,
- The Sudarium is used in the authenticity argument.

So is the Silmarillion.

 

[Jabba]

(highlighted numbering added)

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

At risk of derail, I feel led to point out that this sentence, all by itself, contains at least three misstatements.

1. If "they" "don't want to come to" ISF, "they" are not very interested in pursuing fact. I wonder to what extent you, personally, have poisoned that well with your claims of how bitterly you have been treated here...

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."
- I have grumbled about you guys to some extent, but not very much. I think that you can look up my posts over there fairly easily.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- I need to respond to you guys -- but, I also need to move on to scour past sub-topics and try to organize them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Jabba, but by your own admission you can't even find past sub-topics, let alone organise them.

- If you notice, I tend to respond to posts that are short and not just sarcasm -

No, what everyone reading here cannot fail to notice is that your responses are nothing more than a poor attempt to convey a superficial impression of engagement in a meaningful discussion.

- your previous post was too long to tackle.

Nasssty factses! They buuuurnss us!

- I'm going to go take a nap, but your next to last post will be first on my agenda.

I'd love to see your agenda. Any chance of seeing it in the form of a list?

Lists rock.

 

[Jabba]

Top layer of sub-issues?

It's not an issue at all, Jabba. The shroud is a fake. The proof is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Why do you insist that there is anything further to discuss?






By whom?






You pretend to earnestly seek an evidence-based solution to your alleged doubts about the authenticity of the Table Cloth and yet remain incapable, after years, of being able to locate that solution within a single thread?

Mad research skillz, Jabba.






I beg you to post my comments.

Akhenaten,
- Let me know which comments you would like me to post.

 

[Giordano]

The fact that the Shroud is a fake is extraordinary clear, and has been established beyond any doubt. It is also obvious what kind of "discussion" we are headed for. So no one should say that they didn't know in advance...

 

[zooterkin]

Slowvehicle,
- Your post was just too long to answer in any kind of a hurry. I will now go back and try to respond to one point at a time.

You seem to be skipping over mine, which are much shorter.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- I have invited them; they don't want to come to your site either.

I'll hazard to suggest that it's not ISF (inasmuch as it can be called a "site") which repels your alleged supporters - it's this particular thread.

I'd be having a good, hard think about that if I were you.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten,
- Let me know which comments you would like me to post.

Omnes.

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."

That might hold water were you not the one to come here with grand claims and promises of proof.

It's like me going to Dave Bautista's home, promising I will prove I'm a better fighter than he is, and then -- after getting thoroughly trashed in Dave's living room -- going back to my basement and saying "Yeah, but he doesn't have the guts to come here and try that."

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."
- I have grumbled about you guys to some extent, but not very much. I think that you can look up my posts over there fairly easily.

All they have to do is present evidence that the SoT is authentic.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- Your post was just too long to answer in any kind of a hurry. I will now go back and try to respond to one point at a time.

No you won't. You'll have another moan about your inability to convince your fellow bleevers to come and tackle the evidence

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."

QED

- I have grumbled about you guys to some extent, but not very much. I think that you can look up my posts over there fairly easily.

Some of us have indeed looked up your posts in other venues. You'd do well to stop touting the ability to do so as a positive.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."
- I have grumbled about you guys to some extent, but not very much. I think that you can look up my posts over there fairly easily.

I have read what you have said about your treatment here, on at least one other site. I'll hunt it down, if you really, really want to face the false allegations of mistreatment you made.

I have read, extensively, at Shroudstory.com. Have any of "them" done that, here?

The facts don't need to be "pursued"; first, and foremost, the CIQ has been authoritatively dated, by three independent laboratories, to no earlier than the mid-13_th Century CE. The fantasy of "some patching" (which has never been seen by anyone who has actually handled the CIQ, and cannot be photographed or detected in any way) has been dealt with. The desperate special pleadings of contamination and bioplastics have been dealt with. The woo!-perstitions of "resurrection energy" and "divine alteration of radioactive decay" are just that

What do you, personally, claim needs to be "pursued"?

Just for fun, you should go read Rosa Rubicondior's blog: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-fraud-of-turin.html.

Do you intend to address your accusation of "sarcasm"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Akhenaten,
- Let me know which comments you would like me to post.

I, for one, would like to see your own responses to the rest of my points, including your explanation of your ungrounded accusation of "sarcasm".

I yield to the Mighty One (may he post forever!) if He has other plans.

 

[Agatha]

Is this the sort of thing you are trying to achieve, Jabba?

Table 1. Carbon dating.

Evidence for a 13/14th century date|Evidence for a 1st century date
The carbon dating done in three independent labs dates the cloth to between 1260-1390|None
The banding precludes a patch|None

Table 2. Image.

Evidence for a 13/14th century date|Evidence for a 1st century date
The figure is anatomically impossible|None
The face resembles the mediaeval concept of Jesus rather than a 1st century Jew from the Middle East| None

Table 3. ??

 

[Slowvehicle]

From "Savage Treatment in Randi-Land" (27 July 2012)
http://shroudstory.com/2012/07/27/savage-treatment-in-randi-land/

Anyway, of my 60 or so opponents over there, I’ve finally run into a friendly and rational one — “davefoc” – and he’s provided a lot of reasonable reservations and questions re the re-weaving hypothesis over there, and I’d like to give him our best answers.

Mr. Savage? Care to identify the speaker?

As I said back then, you do not have "60 opponents", you have but one: reality.

Care to address your earlier accusation of sarcasm?

 

[IanS]

Slowvehicle,
- They say the same things about you guys -- i.e., "If 'they' don't want to come to theshroudstory.com, 'they' are not very interested in pursuing fact."
- I have grumbled about you guys to some extent, but not very much. I think that you can look up my posts over there fairly easily.

It's not the same though. Nobody here is asking for their opinions on the shroud.

It is you who are trying to get their opinions on whatever people have posted here as replies to your beliefs.

As everyone here has said from the very start - the C14 dates are the end of the story.

If you, or any shroud believers, want to challenge the C14 dates then the only way you can do that is to run more truly independent C14 tests.

There is nothing left to discuss. The shroud has been properly and independently dated, and it turns out to be 1260-1390.