Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Have you actually tried it, though? Let's just say that it will resemble a face about as much as what's wiped on toilet paper resembles an ass

Seriously, if you're trying to WIPE some sweat and dirt, you'll smear it. You won't end up with a CLEAR face image, including shading that's more associated with light than with dirt, like The Holy Face of Alicante or the Veil Of Veronica, which can also be seen in the copy at Jaen.

But I still have the same question for Jabba anyway. If he believes the face on the shroud is Jesus, because Vatican says so, then how about the Veil Of Veronica, which is ALSO the face of Jesus according to the Vatican. And they're not even the same bloody face. So even stepping outside the wannabe scientist and historian point of view, how wouly you (that is, Jabba) make the case that I should believe in the Shroud instead of the Veil?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Well, not known much in the West, if we're talking about the Veil, but as I was saying, the Byzantines had a long tradition of Jesus-onna-cloth faces.

As for details, well, the devil is in those, or so I'm told

 

[Rincewind]

Have you actually tried it, though? Let's just say that it will resemble a face about as much as what's wiped on toilet paper resembles an ass

Seriously, if you're trying to WIPE some sweat and dirt, you'll smear it. You won't end up with a CLEAR face image, including shading that's more associated with light than with dirt, like The Holy Face of Alicante or the Veil Of Veronica, which can also be seen in the copy at Jaen.

But I still have the same question for Jabba anyway. If he believes the face on the shroud is Jesus, because Vatican says so, then how about the Veil Of Veronica, which is ALSO the face of Jesus according to the Vatican. And they're not even the same bloody face. So even stepping outside the wannabe scientist and historian point of view, how wouly you (that is, Jabba) make the case that I should believe in the Shroud instead of the Veil?

Oh, dear - now you've done it!

We can now "look forward" to years of VoV "discussion".

 

[Belz...]

If he believes the face on the shroud is Jesus, because Vatican says so, then how about the Veil Of Veronica, which is ALSO the face of Jesus according to the Vatican. And they're not even the same bloody face.

We haven't established that, yet!

 

[pgwenthold]

Have you actually tried it, though? Let's just say that it will resemble a face about as much as what's wiped on toilet paper resembles an ass

GODDAMNIT this place needs a like button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CriticalThanking]

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

But it is some weight on the scale leaning towards 2/2, would you not agree?

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.)

Apparently he and his mum spend a lot of time wiping their face on tortillas and pieces of toast.

CT

 

[CriticalThanking]

Bringing together a lot of the comments above regarding "direct" and "indirect"....

The wonder of the scientific method is that it tries to remove biases so we have a better chance to understand reality. Jabba calls an eyewitness "direct" evidence and gives it much weight. Yet we have so many examples of experiments proving not only that eyewitnesses can be flat out wrong about occurrence of events, but that we have many, many ways of fooling ourselves. Wasn't there someone who used to be associated with this site who loved to show that with proper controls, many propositions put forth that people were convinced were true were not? Randy? Mandi?

 

[JayUtah]

Bringing together a lot of the comments above regarding "direct" and "indirect"....

Indeed on the one hand insofar as the radiocarbon dating evidence is characterized as "direct" evidence, Jabba tries so very hard to impeach the "witnesses" of it. Ditto the other scientific evidence.

Paradoxically he wants to define "direct" evidence as witness evidence. His notion seems to be that in order to be direct evidence, it has to be "directly" viewed. Thus if a forensic expert tells a jury that a certain person's fingerprints are on an object, that's not "direct" evidence the person held the object; it's only circumstantial because the jury doesn't get the evidence "directly," but rather via the witness.

And this is likely because he wants to say that "direct" evidence comprises a very small amount of any body of evidence, due to the various indirections in collection and presentation. That way he can say that a very broad amount of evidence qualifies as "circumstantial" evidence -- especially the kind of stuff he wants included there.

His rationale is that as along as you can call some assertion "circumstantial" by some definition, it's valid evidence because "circumstantial" evidence is valid evidence. Same old word games.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well... Jabba has put plenty of effort in the other thread to prove to any reasonable person of average intelligence, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he doesn't understand law

About fingerprints, it's circumstantial not because it's presented by an expert witness, but simply because there is more than one scenario where the fingerprints could have gotten there. And which the defense attorney can build up as reasonable doubt.

E.g., if they find my longsword at the scene of Max's murder, with my pawprints all over the grip and the weak of the blade, a POSSIBLE other explanation is that they just got there when I was training with it. It doesn't BY ITSELF mean unequivocally that I killed Max. In fact, a competent lawyer could point out that having prints on the blade shows that at least some prints AREN'T from the murder in any case. It would make little sense to half-sword (grip the blade itself with one hand) against an unarmoured opponent, since that kind of shortening the reach ONLY helps with trying to poke accurately at weak points in armour. So it might be circumstantial evidence AGAINST the prints having anything to do with murder.

That's what circumstantial vs direct means. Direct evidence is something that has only one interpretation. If a security camera shows me stabbing Max with that sword, there is no other interpretation. If the jury believes that the footage is genuine and that it IS me on the screen, then that's it.

But even without seeing anything, let's say that they find a chip of the killing blade in the victim's bones, and it's a chip of very high-carbon unquenched PLATE martensite, as you'd find in a traditional katana edge, while my sword is quenched modern vanadium steel. Well, then even without any witnesses, that's DIRECT evidence that my longsword isn't the murder weapon. If the jury believes that evidence, then there is one single possible conclusion: my sword isn't what sliced into that guy. That makes it direct evidence.

But, that aside, heh, you know, with his fixation on it having to be witnesses to be direct evidence, I'll grant him that if he produces an eyewitness of Jesus being wrapped in that cloth, I'll concede the case.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Have you actually tried it, though? Let's just say that it will resemble a face about as much as what's wiped on toilet paper resembles an ass

Seriously, if you're trying to WIPE some sweat and dirt, you'll smear it. You won't end up with a CLEAR face image, including shading that's more associated with light than with dirt, like The Holy Face of Alicante or the Veil Of Veronica, which can also be seen in the copy at Jaen.

I agree, but we were not talking about the shroud here, but of the hypothetical cloth that a hypothetical women hypothetically lent to a hypothetical Jesus to wipe his hypothetical face. And I observed that given all the hypotheses, it was plausible there would be something on the cloth that could be interpreted as a face imprint. - Especially knowing that it came directly from a face.

Humans are very apt at recognizing faces, just look at this:
A yellow disk with two dots and a line, but we not only recognize it as a face, but as a happy face.

Hans

 

[Slowvehicle]

I agree, but we were not talking about the shroud here, but of the hypothetical cloth that a hypothetical women hypothetically lent to a hypothetical Jesus to wipe his hypothetical face. And I observed that given all the hypotheses, it was plausible there would be something on the cloth that could be interpreted as a face imprint. - Especially knowing that it came directly from a face.

Humans are very apt at recognizing faces, just look at this:
A yellow disk with two dots and a line, but we not only recognize it as a face, but as a happy face.

Hans

Borjemoi! It's the Hypothetical Smiley of Turin^TM©®!

Elevendy!

 

[Jabba]

Bringing together a lot of the comments above regarding "direct" and "indirect"....

The wonder of the scientific method is that it tries to remove biases so we have a better chance to understand reality. Jabba calls an eyewitness "direct" evidence and gives it much weight. Yet we have so many examples of experiments proving not only that eyewitnesses can be flat out wrong about occurrence of events, but that we have many, many ways of fooling ourselves. Wasn't there someone who used to be associated with this site who loved to show that with proper controls, many propositions put forth that people were convinced were true were not? Randy? Mandi?

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

 

[zooterkin]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight.

Why is that?

 

[John Jones]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Your forte,eh?

 

[Slowvehicle]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

It seems to me that it is here that you do err.

It seems to me that this is precisely the error you made when you claimed that Mme F-L's casual statement that she was "99.9% certain" that the linen of the CIQ was correctly dated to the miod-13th Century C.E., meant that it was "more likely that the dating was erroneous than not.

The facts are that all actual evidence indicates that the CIQ is a medieval artifact.

To overcome that, you would have needed to present more than hopes, conjectures, character assassinations, special pleading, calumny, obdurate obstruction, and stubbornness.

At least you are having fun...

I remain factually yours, &ct.

 

[The Don]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

Well why not break the habit of 4 years and actually present some ?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well why not break the habit of 4 years and actually present some ?

Why would a reasonable person spend 4 years defending a claim if it wasn't true?

Now there's some indirect evidence for you

 

[Belz...]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

Bwa HA HA HA HAAHAAHAHAHAH!

That is... that's hilarious! And wrong on so many levels.

1) Direct evidence is STRONGER than indirect evidence.
2) You have never presented indirect evidence, so it's not your "forte" in any way.

 

[abaddon]

CT,
- I don't give direct evidence much weight. It's these other guys who demand direct evidence. Indirect evidence is my forte.

Sweet Baby Spaghetti Monster. You have none of either. Neither direct nor indirect. You don't even have any imaginary evidence.

We all know this, you know this. What on Earth are you actually attempting?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I agree, but we were not talking about the shroud here, but of the hypothetical cloth that a hypothetical women hypothetically lent to a hypothetical Jesus to wipe his hypothetical face. And I observed that given all the hypotheses, it was plausible there would be something on the cloth that could be interpreted as a face imprint. - Especially knowing that it came directly from a face.

Humans are very apt at recognizing faces, just look at this:
A yellow disk with two dots and a line, but we not only recognize it as a face, but as a happy face.

Hans

I was talking about the Jebus-onna-towel faces, yeah. Specifically, check out the Holy Face Of Jaen because it's a reproduction of the Veil Of Veronica that a pope himself proclaimed to be true and was even carried around wherever the pope went for a while.

We're not talking about a smiley like in Forest Gump, basically. Nor pareidolia. It's a very detailed human face, with shading and all. I mean, even if you pressed a cloth on a face without wiping to smudge it, you'd have basically two white spots for the eyes where the cloth just draped over. The Holy Face Of Jaen actually has eyes.

Trust me, when I said that it's like in the Tex Avery cartoon where Screwball Squirrel gets the dog's face on a towel, and it blinks... yeah, I mean literally more like that, than the smiley in Forrest Gump. I wasn't kidding when I was saying that a sophisticated enough theology is indistinguishable from a slapstick cartoon

I mean, LOOK at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Face_-_Jaen.jpg

Just LOOK at it. It has the open eyes and the corneas visible on it. Even if Jesus pressed the cloth into his open eyes too, there's no reason the corneas would be full of dirt so they imprint dark on the cloth, while the rest of the eye is clear.

And again, by comparison this is the face on the shroud of Turin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secundo_Pia_Turinske_platno_1898.jpg

It's not the same face, is it? So I'm still waiting for Jabba to tell me why should I believe the face on the shroud is the real article, and not the face on the veil. Which has also been proclaimed to be the real face of Jesus.