Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Hans,
- As you probably know by now, I like hypotheticals -- so, I do appreciate your approach, and do feel the need to respond. But for now, appreciation has to be the extent of my response.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because when you have no evidence to present, all you have to work with are your silly hypotheticals.
 
I used to have conversations with my then very elderly Uncle who would ask me why he hadn't seen his wife recently. Unfortunately she had died a few years earlier. If I told him this, it would be extremely painful for him for a few hours, but after a short period of time he would have forgotten the information and he asked again why he had not seen his wife recently. After many repeats of this, I just stopped correcting him because it was too hurtful, and I just steered the conversation to something else.

I find this thread reminds me of this process, in that the anti-authenticity facts that are presented are, in a short time, ignored and the entire debate returns to the original OP as if these corrections had never been made.

I rush to emphasize that I am not attributing any connection between any poster and my Uncle: I know nothing about the motivation, personal abilities, or personal problems of anyone here, and I am not by any means attempting even slyly to assign any personal attribute to anyone. I am honestly not comparing my Uncle to any individual here or attempting to comment on personalities. I only only remarking on a parallel in the process, not in the person.

I would also point out that although my interactions with my Uncle were not a debate, he may have perceived my willingness to stop debating the status of his wife as a confirmation of his perspective. Nonetheless, his wife was still dead.
 
Jabba said:
- Could be that before I try to show that the stains are blood, I should try to show how blood supports authenticity, or go back to trying to show that the carbon dating is wrong. Both make sense.
- However, I don't think that it will ultimately matter where I start -- and, I do think that shifting focus back and forth does matter, and I've been back and forth too many times already. So for now, I'll stick with trying to support the claim that the stains are blood.

- Strike eleven seems especially important, and (even for me) easy to rebut. Why would the artist drop the paint? And, the rings aren't around individual round drops: they're around shaped 'wounds.'
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Any dense pigment suspended in a water-based vehicle (even a proteinaceous water-based vehicle) will show retraction rings, unless it is brushed into the fabric. Dropping, or blotting, the medium onto the surface (the sized and gessoed surface, lest you forget) would be a way to make the "blood" look more realistic, that is, to avoid brush marks. Whether you want to imagine the artist pouring the paint onto the surface (to simulate flowing blood), or spattering it onto the surface (to simulate cast, or projected blood), or dropping it onto the surface (to simulate dripping blood), or blotted onto the surface (to simulate blood seeping from a wound in contact with the cloth), the fact remains that the "retraction rings" are not indicative of blood.

I find it interesting that you do not remember that we have had this very conversation before. Were you hoping that I had forgotten, or are your notes that poorly organized?
 
So can I get an answer as to why if the Shroud is this magical artifact of Jesus it isn't mentioned at all in the Scriptures, canonicals, teachings, or even fan theory of any major church?

If this really is some sort of holy relic you'd think someone would have you know... mentioned that.
 
JoeBentley said:
So can I get an answer as to why if the Shroud is this magical artifact of Jesus it isn't mentioned at all in the Scriptures, canonicals, teachings, or even fan theory of any major church?

If this really is some sort of holy relic you'd think someone would have you know... mentioned that.
Click to expand...

I would venture it is because the CIQ did not exist until the mid-12th Century CE...
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- As you probably know by now, I like hypotheticals -- so, I do appreciate your approach, and do feel the need to respond. But for now, appreciation has to be the extent of my response.
Click to expand...

I know. Any question you can't answer, you simply run away from. However, as long as you cannot argue why blood is significant, why should we discuss it at all?

Hans
 
Blood

Slowvehicle said:
...Have you provided the sources by which you claim the "blood" on the CIQ was serotyped, and genotyped? I would still be interested to read those.
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- Try these. They're all at www.shroud.com.

KEARSE, Kelly - Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review [August 2012]
KEARSE, Kelly - Empirical evidence that the blood on the Shroud of Turin is of human origin: Is the current data sufficient? [21 January 2013]
KEARSE, Kelly - DNA on the Shroud of Turin: Distinguishing endogenous versus exogenous DNA [21 January 2013]
KEARSE, Kelly - DNA Analysis and the Shroud of Turin: Development of a Shroud CODIS [21 January 2014]
KEARSE, Kelly and HEIMBURGER, Thibault - The Shroud Blood Science of Dr. Pierluigi Baima Bollone: Another look at potassium, among other things [21 January 2014]
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- Try these. They're all at www.shroud.com.

KEARSE, Kelly - Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review [August 2012]
KEARSE, Kelly - Empirical evidence that the blood on the Shroud of Turin is of human origin: Is the current data sufficient? [21 January 2013]
KEARSE, Kelly - DNA on the Shroud of Turin: Distinguishing endogenous versus exogenous DNA [21 January 2013]
KEARSE, Kelly - DNA Analysis and the Shroud of Turin: Development of a Shroud CODIS [21 January 2014]
KEARSE, Kelly and HEIMBURGER, Thibault - The Shroud Blood Science of Dr. Pierluigi Baima Bollone: Another look at potassium, among other things [21 January 2014]
Click to expand...

Try providing evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- Try these. They're all at www.shroud.com.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage. While I appreciate your attempt to steer traffic to a committedly sidonist website; with your leave, I will find my own copies, thanks.

Have you, personally, read these sources? Or, as is your demonstrated wont, have you simply accepted quotes form the sources as authoritative, especially when they reinforce your own assumed consequent?

Jabba said:
KEARSE, Kelly - Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review [August 2012]<snip>
Click to expand...

Putting aside the problems, already dealt with elsewhere, that the presence of compounds not inconsistent with blood "demonstrates" the "presence of blood" on the CIQ, there is a deeper, and more serious, flaw in Kearse's description of "blood typing" the degraded blood on the CIQ. Read pages 6-12 of the report. Kearse provides a detailed description of blood typiing, and "reverse typing", but completely overlooks that antigen typing of blood cells takes place upon (and requires) the surface of intact red blood cells. (http://elearning.loyno.edu/resource/nursing/blood-typing-and-modern-day-forensics) The fact that plasma does not contain blood antigens is the reason (for instance) that filtered blood plasma can be used as an emergency blood volume expander without typing. Kearse does attempt an end run ("Although most commonly discussed in association with red blood cells, ABO molecules are actually present on many cell types throughout the body, Additionally, in many individuals ABO antigens may be secreted in bodily fluids such as saliva, serum, sweat, and tears."), but at no point does he indicate that actual red blood cells have been recovered from the CIQ.

This, of course, also overlooks the "sticky-tape" collection protocol and the fact that the CIQ was exposed to public exhibition for many years, making it unlikely that blood and other body fluid contaminants would NOT be found on the CIQ.

Which still leaves one with the problem that, even if it were unequivocally demonstrated without question that actual, intact human blood cells were, in fact, present in the stains on the CIQ, those cells would be present on a piece of 780-year-old linen.

None of which addresses the other factors you conveniently ignore: the anatomical preposterousness, the postural impossibility, the canonic disagreement, and the historical inaccuracies of the byzantine-styled representational image reproduced on the sized and gessoed surface of the 780-year-old-linen.

I am having a serious series of vertigo attacks today; I choose not to expend the effort necessary to focus on, and read, any more of Kearse's analyses (especially as I suspect they are of a piece with the above) right now. Substantively respond to this post, and I will pursue the other references when reading is less effort, and less intrinsically nauseating.
 
Do we know the blood group of the hypothetical Jesus? [/rhetoric]

It seems to me that if there is real blood on the shroud, it vastly increases the likelihood that it is a deliberate medieval fake... [/irony]
 
Belz... said:
Jabba, you avoided Slow's question, here, so I will post it again:

How would the presence of blood, on a piece of cloth that was displayed to the public for veneration, indicate, or even suggest a date for the manufacture of the cloth?
Click to expand...


Hi Jabba,

Your God isn't a big fan of dishonesty and lying, yeah?

Will you answer the question above?

Did you read the Heller and Adler paper?


Hint: to answer these above 2 questions will take a half-dozen keystrokes, maximum. Yes or no. That's it. In your 2-3 hours per day, you could probably answer the above questions in 1 minute (child speed), 2 minutes (adult speed) or 4 years (Jabba speed).

Good luck.
 
Blood

Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.
2)None of the tests conducted (including those conducted by McCrone Associates) have shown the iron earth pigment impurities expected in paint.

- Am I misunderstanding that?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.
2)None of the tests conducted (including those conducted by McCrone Associates) have shown the iron earth pigment impurities expected in paint.

- Am I misunderstanding that?
Click to expand...

Yes, on both counts.

See above, multiple times.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle (or anyone, really),

- So far, in my understanding,
1)The only tests (among the multitude of tests conducted) suggesting that the stains are not blood are those regarding the low level of potassium found -- and, that result has been sufficiently accounted for.
Click to expand...



Wrong. Tests with real blood images have shown marked differences in both unaided and microscopic analysis.

Also, I note that you are ignoring every single person in this thread to meander down your own path. You have been told repeatedly that blood evidence is a dead-end, being made completely irrelevant by carbon dating.

You are, in your own system of debate, out on one thin branch without noticing that the tree has been cut down at the trunk.

Only if you sufficiently deal with the age of the painted cloth would there even be a need to discuss the composition of the pigments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom