Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- You apparently discount Piczek's explanation of the anomalies of the figure. If I'm correct in my assumption, why do you discount her explanation?,
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

I do wish you would stop making unwarranted assumptions, particularly when you hole by them to put words in my mouth.

You, yourself, have obviated a major component of Piczek's "it can't be a painting" screed. The CaCO3 on the CIQ is ubiquitous (nor is it a "special" CaCO3 "only found in the Middle East").

Which, specifically, of Piczek's otherrationalizations do you, personally find compelling?

1. The figure's head comes to a chisel point. There is no space between the representation of the front of the head (the face), and the representation of the back of the head (the occiput) for the top of the head (the crown). How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anatomical abnormality,and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

2. The figure's arms are abnormally long, and asymmetrical. Notice that it does not do to specially plead that the arms must have been dislocated during crucifiction; the representation of the very bones of the arms themselves are impossibly long, and mismatched. How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anatomical absurdity, and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

3. The image's hands are represented as reaching to cover the (missing) representation of the figure's genitalia. Notice that #2, above, makes a mockery of the specially-pled "Shroud SlouchTM"; the representation's arms reach the representation's crotch not because the figure's spine is represented as being drawn up into a contortion not seen in corpses on flat surfaces, but because the figure's arms are represented as ridiculously long. How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anatomical and postural absurdity, and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

4. The representation of the front of the image does not orthographically map with the representation of the back of the image. How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anatomical impossibility, and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

5. I have explained the problem with the representations of blood in the hair and on the arms of the representation on the CIQ. You have yet to address those problems. How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anomalous fluid behavior, including (but certainly not limited to) the problem of either ritual uncleanness or scriptural inaccuracy, and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

6. The CIQ cannot be rationalized as either being δέω ("wound, bound, tied"--G1210) or ὀθόνιον (" 'strips' as used for binding the dead"--G3608) as found in the 'god'spiel of "John". How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this historical and scriptural incaccuracy, and why do you find her account convincing? Further, what has her rationalization to do with the age of the CIQ?

I eagerly await your responses, especially regarding the age of the CIQ.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.
Click to expand...


Wrong. The opposite of carbon dating is not 2000 year old burial shroud of Jesus. The opposite of correct carbon dating is anything other than correct carbon dating.

In fact, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the carbon dating was faulty and you still would not have proved that the shroud is older than 700-odd years. The carbon dating process could have been done incompetently but still accidentally have come up with the correct answer.

You are trying to prove that this is not a painted cloth from the middle ages. That lends nothing whatsoever to the proof that it's the burial shroud of Jesus.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- Thanks.
- I'm not trying to prove anything. I still think that the scale tips in favor of authenticity, and here I've been trying to express my intermediate conclusions that lead me to what for now is my ultimate conclusion. I might be forced to change my mind about my intermediate conclusions, and therefore about my ultimate conclusion, but for now, that the image really is of Jesus is still my best guess.
- Obviously, I'm biased, and I could be giving more weight or credit to my various intermediate conclusions than I should... But, what'r'ya'gonna'do?
- I accept your much greater knowledge of the data, and your probable greater objectivity in general -- but so far, I do think that you're putting more 'faith' in the carbon dating than you should. And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.
Click to expand...

But you have already done so in the past with your own research on invisible patching. You seemed convinced by experts in the field that an invisible patch was impossible, but then some months later it was as though that never happened. What reason would we have to believe that things would be different if evidence caused you to change your mind again?

Ward
 
Jabba said:
- I'm not trying to prove anything.....
Click to expand...
Ah, but you have, in fact, proven several things:
1. You do not understand logic.
2. You lack reading comprehension skills
3. You lack research skills
4. You do not respond to arguments put forth
5. Your conclusions precede and overwhelm any and all evidence put forth
6. You do not wish to engage in honest debate

As a result the only ongoing purpose of this thread is to increase post counts. Nothing else will result.
 
Jabba said:
And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.
Click to expand...
For me, Jabba, you are right. There is a fair weight of evidence on both sides of the argument, and for me the tipping point is the radiocarbon dating. If that was convincingly discredited, I would probably feel that the balance of evidence now pointed towards authenticity. However, that's not to say that there wouldn't be plenty of evidence still asserting a medieval provenance, some of which I have introduced myself, so in no sense would a discreditation of the radiocarbon date constitute proof of authenticity.
Earlier comments are correct too - although some took my rather shorthand labels of arguments for the arguments themselves. Even if the radiocarbon date were wholly discredited, and a wholly natural formation of an image from a dead body were discovered, that too would not prove that the Shroud was authentic, although it would certainly add weight to the possibility.
 
And. I don't have a lot of time for Isobel Piczek. Her studies of the anatomy of the Shroud figure are somewhat subjective. A couple of sketches from the top of a ladder are an unconvincing way of demonstrating the way anatomy can be distorted on a painting. Photographs would be better, but even they suffer from the problem that the light from the waist impinges on the lens normally, while that from the head and feet impinges at an angle, creating the familiar fish-eye effect of the selfie. Photos from further away would reduce that effectively, and, I dare day, show that by bending this or that limb, or angling the body and head by so much, an accurately proportioned copy of the Shroud's anatomy could be achieved. However, this assumes (as she does assume) collimated radiation falling normally on a horizontal surface, which is very much a minority position even among authenticists.
 
hugh farey said:
There is a fair weight of evidence on both sides of the argument, and for me the tipping point is the radiocarbon dating. If that was convincingly discredited, I would probably feel that the balance of evidence now pointed towards authenticity.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute--how so? This is at least the second time you've made similar statements recently, without supporting them in any way. In your very next post, you've even presented arguments for why the anatomy depicted in the shroud is wrong, which has nothing to do with age. So even if the cloth were somehow proven to be not of medieval origin, how would the remaining evidence point toward "authenticity", by which I assume you mean it's the burial cloth of Jesus Christ? (If by "authenticity" you mean something else, please specify what it is you mean.)

You've being very disingenuous and often just appear to be trying to obfuscate the discussion, to be honest.

If you're not, please specify what you meant by "the balance of evidence" in your post. I am sure we would all like to assess and discuss it.
 
Last edited:
hugh farey said:
For me, Jabba, you are right. There is a fair weight of evidence on both sides of the argument, and for me the tipping point is the radiocarbon dating. If that was convincingly discredited, I would probably feel that the balance of evidence now pointed towards authenticity. [...]
Click to expand...


How so? In the absence of 14C dating, what places the age of the shroud in the 2000 year old range?
 
AdMan said:
If you're not, please specify what you meant by "the balance of evidence" in your post. I am sure we would all like to assess and discuss it.
Click to expand...
I would want to reassess the evidence of the pollen and the aragonite, for a start. They are weak evidence for a Middle Eastern origin, as I have demonstrated, but they would gain strength in the absence of a medieval radiocarbon date. I would also want to spend more time comparing the Sudarium of Oviedo with the Shroud. Again, weak evidence, but important to many. Then there's Vignon's vaporographs, which, although my own experiments with dead mice have not determined anything, seem to me a better way of making 'natural' mages from dead biological material than most alternatives. Similarly, I have never gone along with the 'sudden' standardisation of the face of Christ in the 6th century, nor the rather poor similarity of the shroud weave to some Egyptian burial cloths, nor the Crusaders' descriptions of Shrouds in Constantinople. If the radiocarbon date is unassailable, which I believe is true, then none of these is much weight against it, but without it, they gain more strength. In all my many comments on authenticist arguments, my contention has been not that they do not exist, but that they are insufficient to discredit the radiocarbon date. If by some chance it were independently discredited, I think they would collectively challenge my non-authenticist position.
 
John Jones said:
How so? In the absence of 14C dating, what places the age of the shroud in the 2000 year old range?
Click to expand...
In the absence of any date, one must rely on circumstantial evidence. I doubt if any of the letters of, say, Napoleon, have been carbon dated, or even chemically analysed, but there is little doubt that they are what the seem. When an artefact appears sufficiently out of context, such as the Vinland Map, then whether it is what it purports to be, or a fake, or something else, becomes debatable until further evidence can be found, or existing evidence strengthened.
 
<lurk mode off >
Jabba,
Starting with the assumption that there is doubt on the age of the CIQ due to some problem with the C14 dating ,you are then left with the following tasks to prove (prove that is, not hope, wish, desire or believe) :-
1) The CIQ is 2000 years old
2) Jesus was a historical figure
3) The CIQ was used to cover the body of Jesus
4) The marks on the cloth were created by the body in 3 above

In my opinion, if you can not prove 1 nothing else matters.
As others have suggested, start with that, stick with that and don't let anything else stop you proving that.

<lurk mode on >
 
hugh farey said:
In the absence of any date, one must rely on circumstantial evidence. I doubt if any of the letters of, say, Napoleon, have been carbon dated, or even chemically analysed, but there is little doubt that they are what the seem. When an artefact appears sufficiently out of context, such as the Vinland Map, then whether it is what it purports to be, or a fake, or something else, becomes debatable until further evidence can be found, or existing evidence strengthened.
Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence tends to support the 14C date. If the 14C dating were not done, there is not enough evidence to link it to the 1st century CE, much less to a particular individual of impossible anatomy
 
abaddon said:
Are you really citing the proponent of levitating, radioactive Jebus? Really?
Click to expand...

The Resurrection Energy was atemporal so the image of Jesus was flung thru time and deposited on the Shroud.

It's really the only thing that makes sense.
 
2000 Yrs?

Slowvehicle said:
...
1. The figure's head comes to a chisel point. There is no space between the representation of the front of the head (the face), and the representation of the back of the head (the occiput) for the top of the head (the crown). How, in your opinion, does Piczek account for this anatomical abnormality...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,

- I agree. Piczek does not account for that apparent abnormality -- though, in my opinion, she does seem to account for the others...

- I thought that I had read an explanation for that apparent abnormality -- but, so far at least, I haven't been able to find it.
- My own attempt at explanation is that the shroud must have been spread out right at the top of the head -- and, for a short distance along the sides, did not follow the curvature of the head down the sides...

- I'll get back to you on this, one way or another. Remind me if I take too long.
 
Jabba titled the above post "2000 Yrs?" Why would he do that, when nothing in the post has anything to do with "2000 Yrs?"

:troll
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- I agree. Piczek does not account for that apparent abnormality -- though, in my opinion, she does seem to account for the others...

- I thought that I had read an explanation for that apparent abnormality -- but, so far at least, I haven't been able to find it.
- My own attempt at explanation is that the shroud must have been spread out right at the top of the head -- and, for a short distance along the sides, did not follow the curvature of the head down the sides...

- I'll get back to you on this, one way or another. Remind me if I take too long.
Click to expand...


[unlurk]Please do not bother. Please do not divert yourself from the only important task you have, to provide evidence that the Turin Shroud is 2,000 years old[/unlurk]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom