I have mentioned this before, but if Jabba is really spending two or three hours a day and these pathetic responses, you should find a more productive hobby. By now he could have been a concert pianist or speak fluent mandarin.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,366
You've done the "real blood" thing before, it was laughed out of court. Why not spend your next two or three hours of your hobbies searching old posts determining whether you have anything new to add and, if not, have the honesty to admit as much?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
No. There is absolutely no evidence of blood, just artist's pigment.
And, even if there were, it would prove nothing about the age of the cloth.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Giordano,
- You're right. I was just quoting someone else about such documents. I'll see if I can locate what he was referring to.
Come on! 3 hours a day? Any can't respond to the few common questions that you have gotten for years? And can't look up your prior responses or have a working knowledge of the pro-Shroud advocacy points? What are you doing with that time?
You like to list the responses/questions you obtain per post to indicate the difficulty of addressing each one- but how many of these responses/questions are truly individual and different topics? My guess is that there are perhaps only 5 or so fundamental questions that have been asked of you in various ways here. After all these years, and since your return, you have failed to address any adequately (without repeating the same fully rebutted arguments). Other posters have made up lists of these to allow you to organize your own answers. Instead, you have jumped from on topic to another without addressing the first, or complained about how important it is to organize the debate to a limited number of topics. We have done so, with no progress on your part.
Here is a good question if you want just one to begin with: prove, using evidence, that the radioisotope dating is incorrect. Or, if you want a much broader one, provide any evidence that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus.
Thanks! I look forward to your post.
Not proven at all- we have discussed the many problems with this determination already in this thread.
it is interestingly that you consider this incredibly weak and flawed determination "evidence" yet dismiss the evidence provided by multiple independent labs using radio-isotope dating! Your judgement is very distorted by your need to believe in the Shroud. It is also notable that yet again a pro-Shroud assay focuses so much on the "errors" that might have been committed when discussing any anti-authenticity data, without providing any actual evidence that these errors were indeed committed.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It isn't going to make the carbon dating go away.
You are correct in your assessment of the d'Arcis memo as a red herring, but it is one that is being introduced by you, not by anyone else. You are introducing a strawman that you think you can knock down. This will not be an effective method of debate because the argument you are arguing against is not one that your opponents are relying on.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage:
By whom do you think blood has been "pretty much proven"?
In what way do you think the soi dissant blood-images represent the actual behaviour of blood, either from an unwashed and still bleeding (and therefore ritually unclean) corpse, or from a corpse washed, and wound up in "strips", "as was the custom of the Jews" (Matt 27:59)? Remember to consider gravity AND hydrodynamics...
...which might make sense if, for instance, no-one after the 1st Century CE had access to human blood...
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
What are you doing?! You bring up the D'Arcis memo and start to complain that you want "effective debate" and to be able to focus only on one subject at a time. Then out of nowhere you bring up the blood topic. Where did this come from? Can you see that no one here tried to change the subject on you. No one mentioned blood. You did it yourself, in complete contrast to what you claim you want.
As has been said many many times, the best method is to simply post your evidence that the CIQ is the burial cloth of Jesus. Or at least any evidence that it originates from the first century. That would be a big step and would move this "debate" forward. The least productive thing to do is to jump from topic to topic, try to pick apart positions contrary to your own, bring up red herring topics, and waste time telling everyone what you are going to do rather than just do it.
I know you will see this post as attacking you, but it is not. Just go back and read your posts from the last 48 hours or so and see how your actions contradict your statements.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
To be pedantic, this fellow did not use anything at his burial. He was dead. The proposition is that this cloth was used by others
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Mr Savage:
Please address the issue of the "blood" that does not flow in a direction, or in a manner, that gravity and/or hydrodynamics would cause blood to do. Feel free to knock it out of the park.
Please address the issue of the "blood" that does not flow in a direction, or in a manner, that gravity and/or hydrodynamics would cause blood to do. Feel free to knock it out of the park.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
********. Walter McCrone examined the particles comprising the image. He looked carefully at the individual particles under high magnification. He was a trained microscopist with years of experience examining fine particles under the microscope. They did not have the morphology of blood cells. All subsequent chemical and microscopic analysis served only to confirm his identifcation as pigments used in that era. In my opinion the more sophisticated analysis methods only gave shroudies that much more room for obfuscation.
Your statement amounts to an accusation of fraud. As someone trained in the same microsope techniques and familiar with McCrone's sterling reputation, I find your statement above not only ignorant but also shameful.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
To be pedantic, this fellow did not use anything at his burial. He was dead. The proposition is that this cloth was used by others
To be even more pedantic, he wasn't buried but entombed.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
To be EVEN MORE pedantic, "he" was alleged to have been entombed...
Rincewind
Philosopher
And here we have yet another clinching argument...
How many is that now?
If the shroud was genuine, why would anyone need to use paint for the blood?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
We shouldn't be surprised if the blood has behaved in an unusual way; after all, it was left hanging around for well over a millennium waiting for someone to manufacture a shroud for it to stain. It could have got up to all sorts of stuff in that time.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
OK. Before we get onto this memo or the bloodstains, can you deal with the dating evidence? Until you knock that one out of the park, anything else is pointless.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
For the presence of "real blood" to be considered crucial evidence, you will need to establish that "real blood" has not been available anywhere since the first century AD. I don't think you can do this, so you had better get back to the dating evidence.
- Status