Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[Belz...]

About the same as 5 dogs! All the poor pooch were 3 legged.

Therefore, they were not dogs, or at least they tip the scales the other way.

 

[Jabba]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You are, as is your wont, begging the question.

It can be demonstrated that slingshots, do, in fact, exist, and, s such, can legitimately be considered to be the mechanism by which windows may be shattered.

No such demonstration can be pretended to have been made about any facet of the assertion that the manifestly medieval CIQ is the putative "burial shroud" of a specific, problematically historical, individual.

You keep doing that.

I remain accurately yours, &ct.

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

My Dear Mr. Savage;

Instead of contorting to assumptions, why not just read what I have written? I have said, and will say, precisely what I intend to say. Go with that, instead of hoping to get away with putting words in my mouth.

(Or misquoting me, the way you have in your grotesque "map".)

As I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, even if you were able to get past the ¹⁴C dating, you would have a cloth of undetermined age with a preposterous image. Demonstrate that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old, and you would STILL have a cloth with a preposterous image, even if that image (with all its absurdities) were rendered on the surface of a ~2000-year-old-cloth; nor would you have taken a single step toward associating the cloth with a specific individual (much less a problematically historical specific individual).

And specific questions about the CIQ belong in the other thread.

I remain differentially yours, &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

His meaning was clear. He was pointing out in what way your analogy is false. Your analogies pose differentiating evidence. They contrive to make that evidence converge toward the desired conclusion.

You provide no differentiating evidence regarding the cloth. You cannot provide any argument, save question-begging, that shows the evidence to converge toward your conclusion.

A discussion can be had regarding the role of radiocarbon dating in an overall circumstantial case regarding the Shroud of Turin, however this is not the appropriate thread to do that in. You already have a thread in which to discuss Shroud evidence, if any.

 

[AdMan]

- I'll be back.

You really have no idea how tiresome your telling us that you'll "be back" has become, with you never actually coming back with anything like you promised, or do you simply not care?

It's been years and years of this--stop telling us what you intend to do and just do it!

 

[Sideroxylon]

Agatha,
- OK.
- I'll be back.

Back and providing the same diversions and non answers you have for years. Have you no shame?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I have no idea. My attempts to get all four hooves on the scales simultaneously have led to indignity.

However, we could look at the other side of the equation. How much is Jesus supposed to have weighed? Presumably some kind of estimate could be done from the image on the shroud. Given that, by Jabba's "logic", we could then estimate how many other things there are that weigh about the same, and establish or disprove my state of divinity made (yak) flesh.

It occurs to me that there is a serious question arising from my earlier post.
Has any kind of forensic analysis been done on the image? Is it possible to determine such things as ethnicity, age, height and weight? I've also read here that the figure is anatomically incorrect. Is there an image of this? A visual representation of this would, I submit, be quite useful in bringing the point home.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I've just noticed that Shroud Debates claims to be "Both Sides of the Whole Story" which sits at odds to Jabba's cherry-picking to produce false balance. Also, I am still waiting for my comment to be moderated. I suspect that Hugh wouldn't have to wait for so long.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It occurs to me that there is a serious question arising from my earlier post.
Has any kind of forensic analysis been done on the image? Is it possible to determine such things as ethnicity, age, height and weight? I've also read here that the figure is anatomically incorrect. Is there an image of this? A visual representation of this would, I submit, be quite useful in bringing the point home.

There are multiple difficulties with doing a forensic analysis of the image, not the least of which is the quality of what remains. Putting aside for a moment just how much the image has degraded in the ~700 years (or so) since it was first displayed, a very superficial glance at what is left leaves one with some serious issues to resolve.

A further problem is trying to find an image that is 1) visible, and, 2) not clearly "enhanced".

Wikipedia has a decent image, one that is reproduced in negative (for contrast--the claims that the representational image on the sized and gessoed surface is "actually a photographic negative" are a common sidonist rabbit hole), here. This image also can be embiggened by clicking.

A few things leap out.

It is impossible to accurately fix legitimate anatomical points (of, for instance, the position and location of the head [or even the greater tubercle], and the olecranon fossa, of the humerus [needed to determine the actual length of the bone itself, which can be used to estimate the height of the body to which it belonged]). The quality of the remaining representation does not allow for accurate identification of any dependable forensically significant anatomical structures.

On the other hand (sorry) the representation of the hands covering the genitals is problematic. Here is a trivial exercise: lie flat on a hard surface, with your arms relaxed at your sides. Now cover your genitals with your hands. Two things will become easily apparent: first, you cannot reach your crotch without assuming the "Shroud Slouch^TM". Second, notice that, if your elbows are in symmetrical positions (as represented on the CIQ), your hands will also be in relatively symmetrical positions, rather than the bottom hand reaching much further than the top (as represented on the CIQ). Several ad hoc rationalizations have been offered--for instance, that the spine was drawn up into the "Slouch^TM" by rigor mortis, or cadaveric spasm. Of course, had the spine been fixed in that position by spasm or rigor (while "on the cross"), the arms and shoulders would have been equally fixed above the head (think the "Y" in the "Y-M-C-A" dance). The further problem that the chemical processes of rigor mortis (or even cadaveric spasm) would have prevented any blood flow from the body is never addressed.

And so it goes.

Consider the representation of the face (I was tempted to write, "ecce repraesentatione faciem"). In shape and aspect, it resembles nothing so much as the ikonic byzantine style, with its exaggerated elongation and narrowness. That is a distinctly european nose. Further, the (straight) hair falls down to the shoulders, as if the body were erect, rather than matting behind the head as it would if the body were supine.

And so it goes.

Does that help, at least to start?

And don't forget the elephant (as soon as I can get her to give my slingshot back): the linen upon which the cartoon appears is manifestly medieval, dated to the mid-13th Century, C.E.

 

[Jabba]

Slowvehicle,
- I altered it so as to make it actually analogous to our shroud issue:
1) the shroud is authentic, and
2) the shroud is not authentic.

1) The slingshot shattered the window, and
2) The slingshot did not shatter the window.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You are, as is your wont, begging the question.

It can be demonstrated that slingshots, do, in fact, exist, and, s such, can legitimately be considered to be the mechanism by which windows may be shattered.

No such demonstration can be pretended to have been made about any facet of the assertion that the manifestly medieval CIQ is the putative "burial shroud" of a specific, problematically historical, individual. You keep doing that.

I remain accurately yours, &ct.

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

 

[The Sparrow]

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

Ah, anything to distract us from the carbon dating. I sense a new line of attack. Another false binary of medieval vs authentic 2000 year old. Mr. Jabba, if you were to somehow discount medieval, then you are not left with 2000 years old, you are left with an age other than medieval. There is a difference.

 

[Mojo]

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

No, a medieval origin is a conclusion drawn from the evidence you are trying so hard to ignore.

 

[jond]

No, a medieval origin is a conclusion drawn from the evidence you are trying so hard to ignore.

I would go further: I would state that a medieval origin is very much the default position, given the documented history of the CIQ, and the considerable evidence that we do have. (C14 dating, weave, etc...)

Also, as with all the thousands of "holy relics" (including the many "shrouds"), the default position should never be "authentic". The burden of proof must lie with those claiming authenticity. Which is why Jabba's insistence on trying to discredit evidence against authenticity is pointless without any positive evidence in favor of authenticity.

(Of course, Jabba knows this full well, as it's been hashed over a million times. And ignored on each and every one of them...)

 

[JayUtah]

You seem to be presenting medieval as a given. Is that you're intention?

This is your second attempt to bait him into an admission he has specifically disavowed. Do not reword or second-guess other people's posts.

As explained in the now-closed circumstantial evidence thread, you preferentially consider certain individual points of evidence to be individually supportive of authenticity. It has been thoroughly explained that is is not a natural property of the evidence but is merely a reflection of your preconceived belief. But because you are unwilling to consider that, you still believe the radiocarbon dating lines up on one side of the question while things like blood and limestone inherently line upon the other side.

That is simply wrong.

Blood and limestone are neutral. They do not individually or as a pair support authenticity. They do not individually or as a pair necessarily support forgery either. But we don't have to consider them in isolation or as a pair. Nor, if we are going to reason circumstantially, should we. We should consider all the evidence -- not as inherently, point-by-point, favoring one side or the other of the question, but together.

A set of possible hypotheses explains the blood and the limestone. You point out ways in which it could arise if the shroud were authentic. Your critics point out equally or more plausible ways that it could arise if the shroud were a medieval artifact. A different set of hypotheses explains the radiocarbon dating. Your critics point out that the most plausible hypothesis is that the analysis is correct. As alternatives you offer only speculation and defamation -- no actual evidence that the science was performed incorrectly. Insinuation always makes for a poor hypothesis.

Now when we throw all the evidence together, the most parsimonious drawing from the set of intersecting hypotheses from each point of evidence is that the shroud is medieval. Some evidence is merely neutral; it is consistent with several incompatible hypotheses and therefore probative of none of them. Not all evidence is neutral. Other evidence is strongly indicative of a medieval origin by being consistent only with it, such that you have to go to extremely speculative lengths to reconcile it with interpreting the neutral evidence as arising from authenticity.

You talk a big game about circumstantial evidence, but even in that mode of reasoning you're doing it wrong.

 

[Craig4]

Slowvehicle,
- I assume that you are not saying that since the carbon dating is true, this other stuff doesn't matter. Am I correct to assume that?

Are you suggesting that it is somehow possible to get the image on the shroud before the plant material was harvested that was used to make the cloth?

 

[Purple Pangolin]

Ah, anything to distract us from the carbon dating. I sense a new line of attack. Another false binary of medieval vs authentic 2000 year old. Mr. Jabba, if you were to somehow discount medieval, then you are not left with 2000 years old, you are left with an age other than medieval. There is a difference.

I have a very slight disagreement with that. If you discount all of the evidence that points to the medieval period, you are left with We don't know. If the carbon dating had never been performed, we simply wouldn't know what the age of the shroud is. It could still be medieval, or 2000 years old, or it could have popped into existence last Tuesday. The default position is still We don't know.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the binary is false and I have to wonder if Jabba really doesn't understand that or if he's simply ignoring it because it's too inconvenient when he's busy playing at statistics.

 

[JayUtah]

Ah, anything to distract us from the carbon dating. I sense a new line of attack.

No, just the same old line of attack. He admits there is no "direct" evidence of authenticity, which means all he has is "indirect" evidence. I've already written about his equivocation between "indirect" and "circumstantial," so I won't repeat it. But by "indirect" evidence he means his standard laundry list of speculation and defamation aimed at discrediting the radiocarbon evidence. By giving us, as he supposes, reasons to disbelieve the radiocarbon evidence, this "indirectly supports" a claim for authenticity -- i.e., the same old false dilemma he's been peddling unsuccessfully for four years.

No wonder they wouldn't give him a PhD.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
I have to wonder if Jabba really doesn't understand that or if he's simply ignoring it because it's too inconvenient when he's busy playing at statistics.

Like an ever lingering fart the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

 

[The Sparrow]

I have a very slight disagreement with that. If you discount all of the evidence that points to the medieval period, you are left with We don't know. If the carbon dating had never been performed, we simply wouldn't know what the age of the shroud is. It could still be medieval, or 2000 years old, or it could have popped into existence last Tuesday. The default position is still We don't know.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the binary is false and I have to wonder if Jabba really doesn't understand that or if he's simply ignoring it because it's too inconvenient when he's busy playing at statistics.

No objections.

 

[JayUtah]

...it's too inconvenient when he's busy playing at statistics.

Having learned from prior rounds that blood and limestone won't be taken as evidence of authenticity, but merely neutral unprobative elements, he has to spin up some new way of making them seem like evidence on his side. Hence disguising a begged question as "statistics."