Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[JayUtah]

ETA: every sidonist citation of the article that I have been able to find indicates that it was not Mme. F-L who drew a "remarkable parallel" between the 2/2 herringbone and the 1/3 herringbone.

Hence why Jabba dares not quote actual sources, but just someone else's summary of the source.

No parallel, wrong time, wrong place.

 

[Humots]

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Have you, perhaps, access to the original article by Mme. F-L in the 2004 Sidone? The "Newsletter" .pdf to which you link is so poorly formatted, it is difficult to tell what is being represented as Mme. F-L's own words, and what are being presented as interpretation.

I, for one, find it hard to believe a weaver, not to mention a textile expert, would compare a 2/2 herringbone with a 1/3 herringbone, as if the 1/3 were inescapably similar, and not an innovation.

I await your providence of a source, and,

Remain patiently yours, &ct.

Of course they are similar! Doesn't 2 + 2 = 1 + 3?

 

[JayUtah]

Of course they are similar! Doesn't 2 + 2 = 1 + 3?

Yeah, but it's division. 1/3 is less than 2/2.

 

[pgwenthold]

Agatha,
- Wouldn't you have to accept that each of these bits of information is a little bit of circumstantial evidence for blood -- just very weak circumstantial evidence?

Personally, I would say it might be consistent with there being blood on the shroud, but also consistent with other explanations. You would need to consider the totality of the evidence.

But given that, let's assume for a second that I did accept it. Not saying I do, but let's say I did. Heck, let's take it to the max - let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that not only is there circumstantial evidence that there is blood, but you can demonstrate it unequivocally. OK, assuming there is blood on the shroud...

Please explain how that is an argument for authenticity? We have explained repeatedly why it is not, so you apparently have some reason to think it is, or you wouldn't be beating this path so hard.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Yeah, but it's division. 1/3 is less than 2/2.

Yes, but wouldn't you have to accept that a figmentarial (as opposed to a figmentorial)preponderance of circumferentionist evidence would result in the evidenciary sub sub sub annihilationist fractionation (per se) of the argumentum ad reductio via redactive omission which would arguably and without argument result in exactly four, give or take approximately seven, of these 1/3 circumstantially absolute proofs which gives us a mathematically perfect non-fractionary number of 4/3 which itself is obviously more than 2/2 (with a non-fictional p value of 0.63 Bayesian dollars, plus or minus 3.14 circles). And don't forget that we haven't even touched upon the inherent problem that 3/3 is bigger than 2/2!

- I'll be back!

 

[JayUtah]

...of 0.63 Bayesian dollars

I suddenly have an idea for a new cryptocurrency.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Yes, but wouldn't you have to accept that a figmentarial (as opposed to a figmentorial)preponderance of circumferentionist evidence would result in the evidenciary sub sub sub annihilationist fractionation (per se) of the argumentum ad reductio via redactive omission which would arguably and without argument result in exactly four, give or take approximately seven, of these 1/3 circumstantially absolute proofs which gives us a mathematically perfect non-fractionary number of 4/3 which itself is obviously more than 2/2 (with a non-fictional p value of 0.63 Bayesian dollars, plus or minus 3.14 circles). And don't forget that we haven't even touched upon the inherent problem that 3/3 is bigger than 2/2!

- I'll be back!

Sounds like math from an A&W focus group.

 

[Purple Pangolin]

Yes, but wouldn't you have to accept that a figmentarial (as opposed to a figmentorial)preponderance of circumferentionist evidence would result in the evidenciary sub sub sub annihilationist fractionation (per se) of the argumentum ad reductio via redactive omission which would arguably and without argument result in exactly four, give or take approximately seven, of these 1/3 circumstantially absolute proofs which gives us a mathematically perfect non-fractionary number of 4/3 which itself is obviously more than 2/2 (with a non-fictional p value of 0.63 Bayesian dollars, plus or minus 3.14 circles). And don't forget that we haven't even touched upon the inherent problem that 3/3 is bigger than 2/2!

- I'll be back!

Are you okay?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, but wouldn't you have to accept that a figmentarial (as opposed to a figmentorial)preponderance of circumferentionist evidence would result in the evidenciary sub sub sub annihilationist fractionation (per se) of the argumentum ad reductio via redactive omission which would arguably and without argument result in exactly four, give or take approximately seven, of these 1/3 circumstantially absolute proofs which gives us a mathematically perfect non-fractionary number of 4/3 which itself is obviously more than 2/2 (with a non-fictional p value of 0.63 Bayesian dollars, plus or minus 3.14 circles). And don't forget that we haven't even touched upon the inherent problem that 3/3 is bigger than 2/2!

- I'll be back!

This wins one interwebz.

...of course, that's just my 0.02 Bayesian Dollars (B$).

 

[Aepervius]

You could be on holiday for half a century and nothing would change.

More probably depending on whom you ask : a 700 year medieval holiday or a 2000 year old fantasy.

 

[Aepervius]

Agatha,
- Wouldn't you have to accept that each of these bits of information is a little bit of circumstantial evidence for blood -- just very weak circumstantial evidence?

Hey, Jabba, remember back in 2014 or 2013 when you presented the same argument how it fared ? It was rightfully dismissed, right ? Well, why in the name of Baator, do you think this will change now with a bit of begging ?

Now i am back to trudging through the gray waste...

 

[I Am The Scum]

Yes, but wouldn't you have to accept that a figmentarial (as opposed to a figmentorial)preponderance of circumferentionist evidence would result in the evidenciary sub sub sub annihilationist fractionation (per se) of the argumentum ad reductio via redactive omission which would arguably and without argument result in exactly four, give or take approximately seven, of these 1/3 circumstantially absolute proofs which gives us a mathematically perfect non-fractionary number of 4/3 which itself is obviously more than 2/2 (with a non-fictional p value of 0.63 Bayesian dollars, plus or minus 3.14 circles). And don't forget that we haven't even touched upon the inherent problem that 3/3 is bigger than 2/2!

- I'll be back!

We already covered that in page 72 of the third thread!

 

[Aepervius]

We already covered that in page 72 of the third thread!

Baring a small irrelevant delta, I contend that we already covered everything ,multiple time in any of the previous instance of the threads.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Are you okay?

I think that I've been following this thread for far too long.

 

[Lucian]

I think that I've been following this thread for far too long.

Always make sure you're rested and well-hydrated before clicking on the thread.

 

[Craig4]

Agatha,
- Wouldn't you have to accept that each of these bits of information is a little bit of circumstantial evidence for blood -- just very weak circumstantial evidence?

Why would anyone do that when the paper doesn't offer evidence of blood?

 

[The Sparrow]

Sparrow,
- I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of evidence for the weave pattern existing by the first century. Though maybe not practiced in Palestine, it was (apparently) practiced in Syria.
- So far, I can't remember, or find, the source of that particular claim. But, I'll keep looking. Here's all I've found so far.

- From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n60part5.pdf.

From the April 2004 newsletter
HERRINGBONE TWILL CLOTH
(AT LEAST 500 YEARS B.C.)
We announce in advance to the readers of «Sindone News» very important news that
will be published in «Sindon» by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (excerpt).
It is very difficult to find, in ancient times, patterns that can be compared, for, to
what is found on the linen of the Holy Shroud, as far as the 1/3 herringbone twill weave
is concerned. So, as always happens in Shroud research, we have to accept signs,
inserting them scrupulously into the mosaic of knowledge already existing. A small
tessera of this mosaic is represented by the mountain leggings that have been recently
discovered, after the melting of a snowfield on the Vedretta of Ries in the Trentino Alto
Adige.
The finding in 1994 concerns something going back to the Iron Age and it is
dated between 795 and 499 B.C. The leggings are made of natural goat wool and
manufactured with a 2/2 herringbone weave (warp colour beige, weave colour brown
and dark brown). They have no soles and are 54.6 cm long and 15.7 cm wide. They are
made from a piece of fabric 31 cm wide, with selvage to the two ends, which are bound
by a seam on the inside.
An interesting link between the Shroud of Turin and the leggings is represented
by the mutual pattern of the herringbone. This is proof that we can find this technique of
weaving in ancient times, even though in the case of the leggings it is a very rough
woollen cloth. The woollen cloth was manufactured on a more primitive loom than the
Shroud of Turin, but the technique was already known in the pre-Christian era and is
not limited to a specific region. [/I]

- I'll be back.

Weird jumbled language, but as someone pointed out - 2/2 is not 1/3. (Now expect 500 posts on how 2/2 is circumstantial evidence for 1/3 )

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

3. The complete lack of reference to any miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings.

Actually, I'd say that, on the contrary, it fits another overdone kind of relic.

You know the kind of slapstick cartoon where someone gets a hot towel or such slapped on their face, and when pulled off, their face is on the towel? Screwball Squirrel did it to the dog, for example. And I'm pretty sure Woody Woodpecker does it at least once, and Foghorn Leghorn does it once to the dog too.

Well... Xianity has an apocryphal story where exactly that happens to Jesus. A woman offers him a cloth to wipe his face while he's carrying the cross, and the image of his face remains printed on the towel. (And yet somehow none of the gospel writers ever heard about such a conspicuous thing happening right in the middle of the whole crucifixion event.)

Seriously, you know it's sophisticated enough theology when it's indistinguishable from a slapstick Tex Avery cartoon

While the story is not canon, such Jesus-onna-cloth relics were incredibly popular, especially in the Eastern Orthodoxy. And both halves, although again more the eastern Empire had a whole craze of paintings of Jesus just "appearing" on some canvas by miracle. And they had plenty of those, oh, about 1000 years before the shroud.

And I don't even mean the underground kind of popular. Emperor Heraclius actually used such a "miraculous" Jesus-onna-cloth image as the battle flag to inspire the troops. You can't get more mainstream than being the emperor's battle standard, really.

The shroud seems to me like just taking that to the logical conclusion. If people are willing to venerate a piece of cloth with Jebus' face on it, and pay big money for it, how much would a full-body image sell for? I strongly suspect that someone back then found the answer to that question.

Now we also know that those faces on a towel can't all be true, because they don't even look like each other. Nor like the face of the fellow on the shroud.

Which brings me to my question for Jabba: so how do you know YOURS is the real thing? Do you have any chain of custody to show its origin? Even if we were to concede the blood and the weave just for lulz, can you show that it's not the shroud of BRIAN instead of Jesus?

 

[catsmate]

Actually, I'd say that, on the contrary, it fits another overdone kind of relic.

You know the kind of slapstick cartoon where someone gets a hot towel or such slapped on their face, and when pulled off, their face is on the towel? Screwball Squirrel did it to the dog, for example. And I'm pretty sure Woody Woodpecker does it at least once, and Foghorn Leghorn does it once to the dog too.

Well... Xianity has an apocryphal story where exactly that happens to Jesus. A woman offers him a cloth to wipe his face while he's carrying the cross, and the image of his face remains printed on the towel. (And yet somehow none of the gospel writers ever heard about such a conspicuous thing happening right in the middle of the whole crucifixion event.)

Seriously, you know it's sophisticated enough theology when it's indistinguishable from a slapstick Tex Avery cartoon

While the story is not canon, such Jesus-onna-cloth relics were incredibly popular, especially in the Eastern Orthodoxy. And both halves, although again more the eastern Empire had a whole craze of paintings of Jesus just "appearing" on some canvas by miracle. And they had plenty of those, oh, about 1000 years before the shroud.

And I don't even mean the underground kind of popular. Emperor Heraclius actually used such a "miraculous" Jesus-onna-cloth image as the battle flag to inspire the troops. You can't get more mainstream than being the emperor's battle standard, really.

The shroud seems to me like just taking that to the logical conclusion. If people are willing to venerate a piece of cloth with Jebus' face on it, and pay big money for it, how much would a full-body image sell for? I strongly suspect that someone back then found the answer to that question.

Now we also know that those faces on a towel can't all be true, because they don't even look like each other. Nor like the face of the fellow on the shroud.

Which brings me to my question for Jabba: so how do you know YOURS is the real thing? Do you have any chain of custody to show its origin? Even if we were to concede the blood and the weave just for lulz, can you show that it's not the shroud of BRIAN instead of Jesus?

Well OK, allowing for the non-canon origin story, not matching with the supposed shroud, never being publicly known before the thirteenth century et cetera. Minor details to the desperate believer in need of reassurance he's not wasting his time.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well... Xianity has an apocryphal story where exactly that happens to Jesus. A woman offers him a cloth to wipe his face while he's carrying the cross, and the image of his face remains printed on the towel.

Well, wipe a bloody, dusty, and sweaty face in a cloth, and there will be an imprint. If it's not too smudged, it will be recognizable as a face. ^*)
Hardly a miracle.

Hans

*) Remember Forest Gump movie? He wipes his muddy face in a T-shirt and "invents" the smilie.