• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Ian (and others),

- At this point, I think that you and I can precisely identify one of the basic issues that we disagree about -- i.e., who has responsibility to present evidence supporting their side. I believe that both sides are responsible for presenting evidence; you believe that only my side (because of the nature of my claims) is responsible for presenting evidence.
- I suspect that if we can ever come to agreement on this issue, it will take a long time -- so, for now at least, I will try to put it aside, and focus on
1) other areas for which we should be able to identify the basic disagreements, and
2) areas that seem to have better chances of resolving.

- The next issue that we can probably agree to disagree about is "what actually makes for 'progress.'"
- I think that precisely identifying a "basic" disagreement is progress; you probably don't.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...


C14
 
realpaladin said:
I do not disagree here. ;)

As far as I am concerned, and it should show in my discussion with you up until now, I have no problems in trying to fit together pieces of the puzzle.

I am only saying 'wait Jabba, this piece does not fit' (because it either is contradicted, falsified or otherwise not belonging to the puzzle).

My basic premisse is:

If we want to prove the shroud to be the image of Jesus, we need to have an undisputed and unbroken chain from the moment of burial all the way up to the present.

Mind you, some links may be weaker than others, but they must be there.

For the moment we seem to be stuck at the C14 part which is disputed. Or rather the dating.

I see two schools of thought:

1) The C14 dating has been done correctly and there is no evidence of any patching or evidence of any pollution.

2) The C14 dating has been done correctly but the pollution has resulted in an incorrect dating.

Now, as for the evidence in this case, I think proponents of 2) must bring to the table convincingly why the dating was off, because the proponents of 1) only have to point at the activities that are described in the dating procedure, which were not refuted by the Holy See.
Click to expand...
Paladin,

- I'm very happy with your approach. Keep up the good work.
- I only have one "real" reservation and one vague reservation to what you say above. The vague reservation refers to the claim that proponents of 1) only have to point at the activities that are described in the dating procedure, which were not refuted by the Holy See.
- I need to do some more thinking about the "only" part.
- My real reservation is that I'm not trying to "prove" anything. My objective is to show that the preponderance of evidence favors authenticity.

--- Jabba
 
Last edited:
Gonella's Access and Autherization

IanS said:
OK, fine so just provide a reference which says that Gonella was authorised to remove part of the C14 sample at any time.
Click to expand...
Ian,
- Fair enough. I'll see what I can find.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
- So Ian, do you know one of the following:
1) That Gonella didn't have access to the Shroud prior to the actual cutting -- or,
2) That he wouldn't have known where the cutting was to be made when he did have access?
- If you do, can you give me a citation?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Again, you have "concerns" about the dating because of some unstated problems (you've never explained why they are problems), ultimately resorting to "the measurements COULD be wrong," basing it on some fibers by someone that you can't verify the source of the fibers but are accepting them because "we don't know that he _didn't_ have access to the shroud"?

Seriously?
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- How about this? http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n67part8.pdf
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Nope, it only says:

According to Rogers:
‘on 12 December 2003 I received samples of both warp and weft threads that
Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was
distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the
center of the radiocarbon sample.’
Click to expand...

Again, 'according to Rogers'.
 
realpaladin said:
Nope, it only says:



Again, 'according to Rogers'.
Click to expand...
- But Paladin, I was responding to the following request by Ian.
OK, fine so just provide a reference which says that Gonella was authorised to remove part of the C14 sample at any time.
- To me at least, Gonella's obituary makes it sound like he was the one doing the autherizing.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
- But Paladin, I was responding to the following request by Ian.
OK, fine so just provide a reference which says that Gonella was authorised to remove part of the C14 sample at any time.
- To me at least, Gonella's obituary makes it sound like he was the one doing the autherizing.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


Well, where in that obituary does it say that Gonella claimed to have " excised several threads from the centre of the C14 sample"?

Please quote here the part of your link where it says that.
 
Gonella's Access and Autherization

IanS said:
Please don't give me a link requesting me to read Gonellas' obituary!

If you think there is something relevant there, it's up to you to present it here. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ian,

- But aren't you the one that recommended that I buy, and read, Harry Gove's book? Gonella's obituary is really pretty short...
- If you insist, I'll see what relates to your question, and post it here -- though, there's a lot.

- By the way, I did buy Gove's book, Relic, Icon or Hoax. I haven't read it yet -- being a very slow reader -- but I have skimmed it, and like the way he writes...

--- Jabba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom