Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

In all of the different accounts in the gospels and other related writings detailing the discovery that Jesus had been resurrected, you'd think that somebody would have mentioned the fact that there was this spectacular and miraculous image of Jesus imprinted on the burial cloth that was left behind.

You don't even need that. The gosples clearly state that the head-cloth was lying seperately from the rest of the shroud. There's no head cloth in evidence in the Shroud of Turin. Therefore, either the Bible is wrong or the shroud is a fake. A devout believer in the Bible cannot, by definition, accept the Shroud of Turin as Christ's burial cloth.

Creates a neat Catch 22 for believers. SOMETHING is wrong--and they either abandon a relic or abandon their holy book. Neither is easy for them.

 

[Dinwar]

I expressly do not wish to demean your self-described memory problems. I fully understand and sympathize. But if you and your friends do sense that memory of specific facts, citations, and statements is a difficulty for you, you really need to put in the private, undistracted, detailed work first on your own to organize what you hope to be a later, convincing argument for the authenticity of the Shroud that you can bring here.

I have memory problems--apparently I was doing keg-stands at age 3, and that does bad things to short-term memory. However, there are ways to address these. For example, you write everything down. I get made fun of because I take notebooks with me EVERYWHERE when I'm in the office, but when I don't I miss things later on. Secondly, you learn what you remember, and when you'll remember something. When in doubt, write it down.

A discussion forum is actually a fantastic tool for this. One can organize one's references in a post, and update those references periodically as new information becomes available. There's a record of what everyone said here--this isn't a meatspace conversation, where each contribution is ephemeral. If Jabba were half as dedicated as he says he is, he would be using this forum to that purpose.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Ward,

- Are you still there?

- I can't remember -- do you agree with the others that the carbon dating, by itself, is enough to justify ignoring any other evidence?

I am still here. What I believe is that your own primary research indicates that the "invisible patch" theory is impossible. That seems to be your, and other authenticists, main argument against the dating.

I know you are claiming memory problems. You can go back through this thread (and the old thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761) to discover your own research. That's less than 300 pages. You've probably read longer books. However, in this case, you need not read the entire thing. Simply scan through and skip to only your own posts and you will discover that you have already discovered from experts in the field that the invisible patch theory simply does not stand.

Ward

 

[Jabba]

I am still here. What I believe is that your own primary research indicates that the "invisible patch" theory is impossible. That seems to be your, and other authenticists, main argument against the dating.

I know you are claiming memory problems. You can go back through this thread (and the old thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761) to discover your own research. That's less than 300 pages. You've probably read longer books. However, in this case, you need not read the entire thing. Simply scan through and skip to only your own posts and you will discover that you have already discovered from experts in the field that the invisible patch theory simply does not stand.

Ward

Ward,
- I have been looking -- just not finding...
- Do you remember the name of the book, the re-weaving company or the owner?
- Otherwise, I have very little "spare" time and I'm slow anyway... Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Kid Eager]

Ward,
- I have been looking -- just not finding...
- Do you remember the name of the book, the re-weaving company or the owner?
- Otherwise, I have very little "spare" time and I'm slow anyway... Any help would be greatly appreciated.

take your time...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ward,
- I have been looking -- just not finding...
- Do you remember the name of the book, the re-weaving company or the owner?
- Otherwise, I have very little "spare" time and I'm slow anyway... Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8214726#post8214726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8215318#post8215318

...and be sure and read the rebuttals; the most telling of which is that, if, indeed an "invisible" "french reweave" had been done on any part of the CIQ, it could only have been done with other threads from the CIQ itself, and would not, could not, affect the ¹⁴C dating in any way.

You are, of course, most welcome.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

Slowvehicle,
- Thanks. You are, indeed, most appreciated.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8214726#post8214726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8215318#post8215318

...and be sure and read the rebuttals; the most telling of which is that, if, indeed an "invisible" "french reweave" had been done on any part of the CIQ, it could only have been done with other threads from the CIQ itself, and would not, could not, affect the ¹⁴C dating in any way.

You are, of course, most welcome.

Slowvehicle,
- How about another favor? Do you have specific rebuttals in mind?

 

[pgwenthold]

Slowvehicle,
- How about another favor? Do you have specific rebuttals in mind?

Oh come on, this is silly. Read the posts provided and the ones that follow it, and you will see them. YOU figure it out.

 

[Stuart]

Slowvehicle,
- How about another favor? Do you have specific rebuttals in mind?

Here's one :- by me

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- How about another favor? Do you have specific rebuttals in mind?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

The rebuttals are there in your own sources. To list but a few:

1. The "invisible reweaving" (nee "French Reweaving" or "reversal weave")
is done with threads gently removed from other portions of the cloth being "rewoven". As such, any procedure of this type would only, could only, return the same ¹⁴C date results as any other piece of the cloth being tested, because the fibers used to effect the "reweave" are, in fact, the same as the other fibers in the rest of the cloth.

2. "Invisible reweaving" is a bit of advertising puffery. It is true that a well done "invisible reweave" is not obvious to the casual glance, especially on a lined garment; OTH it is easy to detect "invisible reweaving" from the reverse side of the cloth. If nothing else, the anchor strands make a ring of double-thick threads around the reapir, which is easy to see from the back side.

3. Mme. F-L actually handeld the CIQ; actually examined both the front and back sides of the linen. She detected no hint of any reweave, or "some patching", on either face of the fabric. Insisting that she must have missed an "invisible reweave" is no more than special pleading.

4. "invisible reweaving" is a fairly recently-developed technique; no there is no evidence the technique existed in the mid-13^th Century CE, much less in the 1^st.

You are welcome.

Do you ever intend to address my other questions?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

- From http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9321252&highlight=Frenway#post9321252
- But Agatha, I’ve tried to explain that several times. I rejected Marino’s reference to the “Frenway Method” (which is supposed to be essentially (if not totally) invisible) and returned to the less “exotic” repair that Rogers seems to be advocating -- and that I was first advocating (before I began advocating the Frenway Method).

- From:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761&highlight=fleury&page=55
Dave,

- Here’s my best guess, so far, at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".
- We have assumed that the sample had been closely examined microscopically prior to the cutting, but it hadn’t. The “tiny” corner used for the sample had nothing more than a naked eye examination. And, the re-weave was not visible to the naked eye.

- Keep in mind that
1) Fleury said it didn’t matter where they cut – it was all the same. This was obviously an overstatement, considering that some repairs had already been acknowledged. Maybe, she just assumed that they would never use that obviously problematic corner for the sample
2) Seems like the adjoining Raes sample was an obvious repair.
3) Fleury was not present at the sample selection.
4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…
5) And, experts do claim that re-weaving can be done well enough so as to not be visible to the naked eye.

- Let me know where I've missed contradictory evidence to what I just claimed, or where I need to provide citations (I assume that you already accept some of what I just claimed, and it takes me awhile to look things up).

- In order to evaluate the claim that the sample is not representative of the greater shroud, there is a lot of back and forth I need to review. You guys can help me try to diagram/map this particular dialogue. I'll do my best to fill in the pieces, but if we can collaborate, we might actually get somewhere.

 

[pgwenthold]

4. "invisible reweaving" is a fairly recently-developed technique; no there is no evidence the technique existed in the mid-13^th Century CE, much less in the 1^st.

Besides, even IF "invisible reweaving" were available in the mid-13th century on, why in the blazes would anyone have used this great technique on an obscure corner of the shroud that (according to Jabba) gets handled a lot and NOT applied to the middle of the Shroud that everyone sees, where a buttload of obvious patching has been done?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

...we might actually get somewhere.

No, we won't. You'll pretend to forget the arguments. Again.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

 

[Aepervius]

Besides, even IF "invisible reweaving" were available in the mid-13th century on, why in the blazes would anyone have used this great technique on an obscure corner of the shroud that (according to Jabba) gets handled a lot and NOT applied to the middle of the Shroud that everyone sees, where a buttload of obvious patching has been done?

They were true great prophet and got a giggle out of puzzling the scientist century later by making them believer this is not the true(c) shroud(tm) of the lordddde, thus... i dunno normally the last step is profit but i am coming with nothing here.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

Slowvehicle,
- I have assumed that there was some repair done on the sample. The problem, from my side, is that there appears to be so little of it -- not nearly enough to account for 1300 years.
- Didn't FL say that there wasn't any repair?

 

[Pixel42]

1300 years.

So now you're also incapable of simple arithmetic?

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>
- Here’s my best guess, so far, at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".
- We have assumed that the sample had been closely examined microscopically prior to the cutting, but it hadn’t. The “tiny” corner used for the sample had nothing more than a naked eye examination. And, the re-weave was not visible to the naked eye.

"Invisible reweaving" is not "invisible". As has been pointed out to you for over two years now, "invisible reweaving" can, in fact, be seen--especially from the back side of the cloth. (The "anchor strands" leave a ring of double-thick threads where they overlap.) Further, "invisible reweaving" is performed with threads from the original cloth itself, which means that it will not, cannot, change the result of ¹⁴C dating.

- Keep in mind that
1) Fleury said it didn’t matter where they cut – it was all the same. This was obviously an overstatement, considering that some repairs had already been acknowledged. Maybe, she just assumed that they would never use that obviously problematic corner for the sample

This is, simply calumny. You assume that teh tested corner must have been "different"; so that you can assume thatg Mme. F-L must have missed"some patching". This is the inherent problem with circular reasoning, and with special pleading.

2) Seems like the adjoining Raes sample was an obvious repair.

Feel free to support this statement. What makes it, in your opinion, an "obvious repair"--moreover, an "obvious repair" that escaped the notice of every person who has actually handled the CIQ in person? I would appreciate your source for this assertion.

3) Fleury was not present at the sample selection.

I wonder what you think this means; I wonder how you think this might have affected the ¹⁴C dating.

4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…

Which, unless you are continuing to allege outright incompetence or intentional fraud, argues against the alleged inclusion of "some patching" in the test sample ("patching" I remind you, which has never been detected by any person who has actually handled the CIQ in person).

5) And, experts do claim that re-weaving can be done well enough so as to not be visible to the naked eye...<snip>

I invite you to support this assertion. Who are these experts, and where is this claim recorded?

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- I have assumed that there was some repair done on the sample. The problem, from my side, is that there appears to be so little of it -- not nearly enough to account for 1300 years.
- Didn't FL say that there wasn't any repair?

If you assume that there was repair on the sample, and that it was invisible repair that experts can not detect, and that this invisible repair was somehow done with Middle Age threads (even though an invisible repair, even if it existed, would need to be done with ancient threads from the Shroud itself), and that someone decided to do this intricate (non-existent) invisible repair to some obscure margin of the Shroud whereas highly crude and visible repairs were done to the crucial center of the Shroud... then why not just assume that most of the sample was the patch?

In fact, why not assume that the entire Shroud was repaired during the Middle Ages, with none of the original left behind? Perhaps two different parts at two different times, sort of like the puzzle about George Washington's axe. That would account for everything, including the dating. And you would still be able to believe that the Shroud was the burial cloth for Jesus, in spirit at least.

To my understanding, FL said that there wasn't any detectable repair in the region sampled, and this was backed up by other experts.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I have assumed that there was some repair done on the sample. The problem, from my side, is that there appears to be so little of it -- not nearly enough to account for 1300 years.
- Didn't FL say that there wasn't any repair?

And here is the crux of the problem.

Q: Why is it that you assume there was some repair done?

A: Because you need there to be a problem with the ¹⁴C dating.

Your assumption is supported by no other evidence.