Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Filippo Lippi said:
Everyone accepts there is some repair, it's bleedingly obvious. No one, but the most desperate and the most credulous, accepts that there is a jot of evidence for the invisible repair. You have accepted that there is no evidence for invisible mending at least once in this tortuous thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's what I meant with french method, I added invisible to make it clear.
 
Jabba said:
Dinwar,
- I was responding to that first quote. I would argue that if Hugh accepts that there was some repair, that conclusion is not based upon wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Savage:

No person who has handled the CIQ has detected any evidence of "some patching" in the tested corner. Anyone who claims that "some patching" might exist, despite the fact that such "patching" has never been detected by any person who has examined the CIQ in person is, in fact, indulging in wishful thinking--whether it is one person, or a score, or a legion.
 
Last edited:
I think there's some confusion between patching on the shroud and patching on the sample used for the carbon dating.

There is very obvious patching on the shroud. The sample was carefully selected from an unpatched area. To imagine there might be magically invisible patching which leading textile experts were unable to detect when there is obvious patching on far more important areas of the shroud is perverse.
 
Jabba said:
Belz,
- How about free will?
Click to expand...
Does it exist?

Jabba said:
Dinwar,
- I haven't been able to find the quote, but I think that Hugh accepts that there has been some repair done on the sample.
Click to expand...
So what? Unlike Hugh's putative opinion the experts who've actually examined the shroud are certain there was no patching in the sample area.
 
Jabba said:
Belz,
- Do you agree with "mainstream" science?
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that you keep changing the subject.

It's not a matter of agreeing, but accepting the evidence. You don't accept the evidence because you have a prefered conclusion. Science doesn't work that way, and by working like it does it sent us to the moon. Your method sent us to the dark ages.
 
Claiming to quote an author without a citation can be risky, so before anyone attributes something to Hugh that he did not write, this is what Hugh Farey actually had to say just a few years ago about patching and contamination:

THE MYSTERY OF THE INVISIBLE PATCH
Hugh Farey

It would be wrong to say that there is no evidence that the
radiocarbon corner of the Shroud has suffered from contamination which
makes it untypical of the cloth as a whole. Although the proportion of
cotton found is too inconsistent to be diagnostic, and there is certainly no
visible evidence, Ray Rogers’s discovery of vanillin is significant, and may
have wider implications for non-destructive textile dating than the
Shroud. The discovery of madder root pigment, and the statistically
determined age gradient of Riani and Atkinson are suggestive.
Nevertheless, it cannot be said there is sufficient evidence of the contamination that would be required to falsify the 13th/14th century date determined by the radiocarbon laboratories, for the patch hypothesis to be accepted without serious reservations.BRITISH SOCIETY FOR THE TURIN SHROUD NEWSLETTER 78
DECEMBER 2013
PAGE 35
Click to expand...

This is a well written article with very good photographs to support Hugh Farey's claims, and I believe anyone who supports the patch theory should take notice. According to Hugh Farey, the patch theory is,

...currently the strongest, perhaps the only, weapon in the anti-radiocarbon armoury.
However, it suffers from a major difficulty: how do you demonstrate the
presence of something apparently invisible?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating Doubts/Repair&Contamination Otherwise

- Note that I didn't use the word "patch." I said "repairs."
 
Belz... said:
That's a tautology. You can always another "why ?", but that doesn't make the science we do have useless.



Name one thing critical that isn't explained.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Belz,
- How about free will?
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
What about it ?

According to "mainstream" science, there is no such thing, and the mind is made aware of decisions made by the brain several moments prior. You chose poorly.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Belz,
- Do you agree with "mainstream" science?
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
I can't help but notice that you keep changing the subject.

It's not a matter of agreeing, but accepting the evidence. You don't accept the evidence because you have a prefered conclusion. Science doesn't work that way, and by working like it does it sent us to the moon. Your method sent us to the dark ages.
Click to expand...
- If you do not believe in free will, I'll need to find another example of something that mainstream science cannot explain. If you do believe in free will, you believe in something that is unexplainable to mainstream science...
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Repair&Contamination Otherwise

Belz... said:
You are aware that they are synonyms, right ?
Click to expand...
- If Hugh calls it a patch, I will too. Otherwise, there are slightly different connotations in the two words. Why did everyone responding (except Dinwar) use "patch" instead of "repairs"?
 
Last edited:
St. Geddy of Lee

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill​

I used to have this cassette, and it had some patching repairs after I played it a few hundred times.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Note that I didn't use the word "patch." I said "repairs."
Click to expand...

So wait. Are you now suggesting that there are invisible "repairs" in the region that was sampled? Because no one who has examined the cloth has noticed the presence of any repairs in area, so any that were done must have been done so well as to be invisible.

How do you propose these invisible repairs were done? When were they done? By whom? And why did the bother doing invisible repairs in an obscure corner of the shroud that (according to you) gets handled all the time and not use that technique on the body of the shroud were repairs are all obvious?
 
Jabba said:
- If you do not believe in free will, I'll need to find another example of something that mainstream science cannot explain.
Click to expand...
Why?

Science does not know everything, but that is not an excuse to wilfully ignore what it does know. It does know that the shroud of Turin is a medieval artefact.
 
Jabba said:
- If you do not believe in free will, I'll need to find another example of something that mainstream science cannot explain. If you do believe in free will, you believe in something that is unexplainable to mainstream science...
Click to expand...

You don't understand: it has nothing to do with belief, but EVIDENCE. Do you understand this ?
 
Jabba said:
- Note that I didn't use the word "patch." I said "repairs."
Click to expand...

Well, Benford and Marino used the phrase "invisible patch". Perhaps you have a new hypothesis heretofore not espoused? The compelling non-invisible but overlooked extraneous thread contaminated fiber and carbon date fooling patchless weaving repair theory?

New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch”
in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud

In addition to the recent publication of a peer-reviewed article by former Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) chemist, the late Ray Rogers, which provided compelling scientific evidence of a medieval restorative patch in the C-14 sample (Rogers, 2005), a newly-discovered confirmation of this proposed repair on the Shroud has come to light. The custodian of the Shroud’s current scientific advisor, Professor Piero Savarino, co-authored a booklet on the Shroud before he was appointed advisor to Cardinal Poletto of Turin.

In the 1998 booklet, he stated that the 1988 C-14 testing might have been erroneous due to “extraneous thread left over from ‘invisible mending’ routinely carried out in the past on parts of the cloth in poor repair” (Savarino and Barberis, 1998: 21).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom