Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[slyjoe]

Jabba titled the above post "2000 Yrs?" Why would he do that, when nothing in the post has anything to do with "2000 Yrs?"

I think originally he was using the titles to help him arrange his arguments in a search.

That would explain a lot.

 

[John Jones]

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.

What about the 2000 years thing?

 

[abaddon]

What about the 2000 years thing?

Seconded. Titling a post "2000 yrs?" and proceeding to have nothing in the body of the post about it is deceptive at best.

More importantly to my mind is the fact that Jabba is clearly electing a single poster to whom he deigns to respond to and ignoring all others in a covert attempt to repeat his failed one-on-one thread with LL.

 

[Jabba]

Discussion Format/Permanent Record

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.

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

Ward,

- If I remember correctly, I forgot...

- Also, if I remember correctly, that 'disappearance' occurred over my short hiatus from this thread. If you want, I'll go back and track down the exact evolution. But that shouldn't be necessary -- if I forget again, just remind me again.
- Whatever, I am working on a permanent record (on my blog) of where we are on each sub-issue and how we got there. Though, it is slow going.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba titled the above post "2000 Yrs?" Why would he do that, when nothing in the post has anything to do with "2000 Yrs?"

Smoke and mirrors. All of it. Smoke and mirrors.

Since this was originally the Randi forum and many here have an interest in stage magic, it is obvious what distraction is being attempted here, and how it works and why it is being deployed. For the very same reason that stage magicians deploy it. This is simply rhetorical sleight of hand.

It may be, or likely is, completely unconscious. But that does not change it's nature. Almost all stage magic works this way. I do it myself when performing (performing magic for the perverts out there). I have gotten away with the most outrageous lies simply by lying more about a particular effect.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

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

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

How is it, in your opinion, that Piczek's rationalization account for the freakishly long arm bones?

How is it, in your opinion, that Piczek's fantaies account for the disagreement with scripture and history?

You keep ignoring questions. "In my opinion" is not an explanation. How do facts, how does manifest reality, support your opinion?

Piczek is wrong about the distribution of the CaCO₃--why does that critical bit not undermine your acceptance of her flights of fancy?

- 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.

And yet, not able to find it or remember it, you offer it as support.

- 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...

Which does not, of course, address the issue. I realize you do not do practical demos, but try this:

Put your thumb on the mental process of your chin, and reach up across your face as far as possible with your open palm. Mark the place where the tip of your little finger reaches.

Now put your thumb level with your occipital process, at the back of your skull,and reach up with your palm. Again, mark where your little finger reaches.

Now put your thumb there, at the mark. Reach forward with your pal toward the mark on your forehead. If you are of human proportion, your little finger will reach to, or just past, the mark on your forehead. Human heads are generally as long as they are tall.

Now, follow: your rationalization would actually increase the apparent length of the skull--the front and back would be further apart than they are in an actual skull.

What is seen on the CIQ is that the representation of the front of the head is practically touching the representation of the back of the head--the head is depicted as coming to a chisel point.

That alone demonstrates that the image is not the projection of an actual human figure.

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

Honestly, since NONE of Piczek's stuff has anything at all to do in any way with the age of the CIQ, I strongly suggest that you not bother "getting back to me" about that; instead, why not simply present your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old? You have already taken too long, and far too ling, to do that.

I eagerly await your evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old.

 

[Belz...]

Ward,

- If I remember correctly, I forgot...

- Also, if I remember correctly, that 'disappearance' occurred over my short hiatus from this thread. If you want, I'll go back and track down the exact evolution. But that shouldn't be necessary -- if I forget again, just remind me again.
- Whatever, I am working on a permanent record (on my blog) of where we are on each sub-issue and how we got there. Though, it is slow going.

Proof or bust, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

<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 >

Stuart,
- I'll try not to use the word "prove" anymore -- except to say that I'm not trying to prove anything.
- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Lucian]

Ward,

- If I remember correctly, I forgot...

<snip>

Best. Sentence. Ever.

 

[carlitos]

Seconded. That was fantastic.

 

[abaddon]

<respectful snip>

The problem is that Jabba wants to argue that if you ignore all of the evidence against in it's entirety, then he has a watertight case.

Even though that is not true anyway, why would you ignore any of the actual evidence?

His entire case rests on the notion that if one ignores the actual physical evidence he does not like, and only accept the evidence that he does like (which he has not presented) then he wins. It's not about evidence or reality or practicality or plausibility or anything, really.

It's about scoring a win for jebus, shoring up a failing mythology as real at any cost.

The tragic part is that all of this has precisely 0 impact on any faith. Even were all of the shroudies to concede that the cloth-of-doom is not genuine, it does not have any effect upon their faith in a 2000 year old zombie at all.

Were Jabba, or any other shroud proponent to fess up and say "OK, I now accept the cloth as a medieval fake" it would, or should, have no impact upon their faith. Plenty of christians do hold that position. They are still christians.

My very own catholic parents maintained that the shroud was a blatant fake, yet remained catholic. Didn't worry them. Didn't alter their beliefs. Somehow, Jabba's faith seems so insecure that disproving the shroud would destroy his faith. How one could enter such a strange land is incomprehensible to me.

 

[Mojo]

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?"

Nothing?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Ward,

- If I remember correctly, I forgot...

- Also, if I remember correctly, that 'disappearance' occurred over my short hiatus from this thread. If you want, I'll go back and track down the exact evolution. But that shouldn't be necessary -- if I forget again, just remind me again.- Whatever, I am working on a permanent record (on my blog) of where we are on each sub-issue and how we got there. Though, it is slow going.

Please do. It is necessary because you still seem to have no memory of it occurring and it was something new and original that you personally brought to shroud research. You contributed significant research to the invisible patch theory. Most everything else you've done here is cut and paste of the research of others, but this was your baby and it should be front and center in any blog or permanent record you compile.

Ward

 

[Belz...]

Stuart,
- I'll try not to use the word "prove" anymore -- except to say that I'm not trying to prove anything.
- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Proof or bust, man. Stop stalling.

I propose that no one answer Jabba except in similar manners until he mans up and provides evidence for his claims, specifically the current pending question. Stop encouraging him to veer off.

 

[Mojo]

- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Your "intermediate conclusions" do not support the conclusion that the cloth is 2000 years old:

- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.
- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.

If the cloth wasn't painted, that just means that it wasn't painted. This has no bearing on its age. Just as in the immortality thead, you are having problems with your definitions of A and ~A. If A is "the shroud is painted", ~A is "the shroud is not painted". It is not "the shroud is 2000 years old".

- If the shroud was not painted, I conclude that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.

If "a real, dead, body produced the image" by some other means, that does not mean that it is 2000 years old. Dead bodies have always been available.

- From other evidence, I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.

Again, this has no bearing on its age. The information in the Bible has been known over a wide range of time. 13th century forgers, for example, would have had access to this information.​

All you have is a series of non sequiturs backed up by nothing more than wishful thinking.

Now, do you have any evidence that the cloth existed in the first century?

 

[John Jones]

Stuart,
- I'll try not to use the word "prove" anymore -- except to say that I'm not trying to prove anything.
- Instead, I'm trying to support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old by supporting intermediate conclusions that, if true, support the conclusion that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Show evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old then. No one is fooled by your weasel-wording.

 

[John Jones]

Ward, [...]

- Whatever, I am working on a permanent record (on my blog) of where we are on each sub-issue and how we got there. Though, it is slow going.

I'm willing to bet your blog shows little resemblance to reality, considering all the times you've misstated peoples' positions and tried to put words in their mouths.

No, I won't go back and look them up for you in case you were going to ask. Especially since you won't provide evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Monza]

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.

I agree with this, though I believe that in the absence of C14 dating the circumstantial evidence still points to a medieval date. The known provenance of the shroud, the herringbone weave, the width of the loom, the Gothic portrayal, and the abundance of holy relics during the period of its first known existence all circumstantially point to a medieval date.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Whatever, I am working on a permanent record (on my blog) of where we are on each sub-issue and how we got there. Though, it is slow going.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this is a waste of your time. You should instead go back through the entire two threads and make a note of every single bit of evidence that has been presented, and include citations, be that a link or a book reference.

 

[Dinwar]

(nor is it a "special" CaCO3 "only found in the Middle East").

Just because I want to establish that I wasn't making stuff up earlier: There IS a rather special carbonate found predominantly in the Middle East: protodolomite. It was once thought to be an intermediate stage between regular limestone and dolomite, then thought not to be, and apparently in 2006 the issue was re-opened. reference

So it's entirely plausible that the CIQ was covered in special carbonate that's predominantly of Middle Eastern origin. It proves nothing, as 1) this stuff is found elsewhere, and 2) it's not like there wasn't extensive interaction between Europe and the Middle East (what with the Crusades and the like).

Sorry for the slight derail. I just thought I'd wrap up that particular thougth.

Still no evidence supporting the notion that the cloth is 2ka. Still no reason to take the notion of it being the burial shroud of Yeshua seriously.