Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

I concede all points.

Ha, ha (smiles) ... well Jabba could something important there lol!

 

[IanS]

Whoops, I meant to say ... " well Jabba could learn something important from that reply by Ladewig lol!"

 

[Jabba]

Brief hiatus

If I may add to catsmate1's list

• the fact that examination of the sampled area, both before and after removal, showed that it was not part of a patch
• the lack of historical record for the shroud's existence prior to ~1355
• the fact that the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery
• the fact that the modern RCC accepts that the Shroud was not the burial cloth of Jesus.
• the textile analysis including types of analysis that did not exist in the 1300's (UV and X-ray fluorescence)
• the pigment analyses, microscopical and chemical
• the iconographic similarity to other religious art of the period including dimensions, which if were associated with a living person, would defy all rational explanation
• the ease with which the shroud has been replicated using period methods
• the lack of correspondence of the image on the cloth to that which would result from it being used as a shroud
• the fact that the cloth does not correspond to the usual Jewish burial practices and even the biblical description

- Okay guys, I'll try to give superficial answers to the above objections -- but, I'll have to leave it there for now. Right now, I'm trying to provide evidence and arguments that the small piece (1cm by 7cm) was not representative of the larger cloth.
- 'Below' that (as I try to narrow the focus), I'm trying to show that Gonella had the necessary access -- and probably had the authorization -- to provide Rogers with the samples that Rogers claimed that he (Gonella) did. I'm trying to show that while Rogers could have been lying about that, there's no significant evidence that he was.

- So, I'll start providing superficial answers to the above objections, one at a time, in my next post. And, you probably shouldn't "fuss" at me for providing just superficial answers -- I simply do not have time to give deeper, well-evidenced answers to all your objections (not nearly), before you start posting new objections you would also like answered (leaving my greater objective -- to keep narrowing the focus -- in the dust...).
- Mostly, I'm pleading for patience here. I sincerely believe that for serious debates to ever actually get somewhere, patience is the primary virtue.

- Here's hoping that touches a chord. Until then, I'll be back -- with my fingers crossed.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the fact that examination of the sampled area, both before and after removal, showed that it was not part of a patch...

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I do not accept that such was shown. I accept that numerous researchers have claimed that the sample was not part of a patch (and, they could be right); but then, other researchers have claimed that it is. I still think that "patch" is a reasonable possibility -- but also, that there can be other explanations for the sample not being representative. Mostly, so far, I do believe that the sample is not representative...

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the lack of historical record for the shroud's existence prior to ~1355

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Taken from our "Opening Statement" in http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=43.
- While the documented history of the shroud can be traced back with certainty only to the mid-14th century, several important clues show that the shroud probably existed long before that time.
- Google "Sudarium of Oviedo."

--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I do not accept that such was shown. I accept that numerous researchers have claimed that the sample was not part of a patch (and, they could be right); but then, other researchers have claimed that it is. I still think that "patch" is a reasonable possibility -- but also, that there can be other explanations for the sample not being representative. Mostly, so far, I do believe that the sample is not representative...

--- Jabba

Well it has already been explained to you, with overwhelming evidence, that what you just said above is untrue - it's not true (as you just said) that " other researchers have claimed it was a patch " ...

... no other "researchers" have ever claimed it was a patch.

The only people who claim it was a patch, are Christian fundamentalist shroud fanatics like the members of STURP ... and they are most definitely NOT credible "researchers".

So, don't bother to post any claims from Christian shroud fanatics and/or shroud websites.

You are still back right at square one - if you intend to post evidence from genuine "researchers" then they need to be truly independent properly qualified sources ... and that means, as has pointed out here on every single page, genuine research scientists publishing their evidence in a genuine research journal ... just as the radiocarbon scientists did when publishing their results in Nature ...

... you have to produce something which is genuinely comparable with the paper in Nature.

Unfortunately you have been asked to do exactly that for 17 pages now and so far you have absolutely zero.

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the fact that the medieval church authorities accepted that the shroud was a forgery

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I'm not sure to what you're referring here.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Well it has already been explained to you, with overwhelming evidence, that what you just said above is untrue - it's not true (as you just said) that " other researchers have claimed it was a patch " ...

... no other "researchers" have ever claimed it was a patch.

The only people who claim it was a patch, are Christian fundamentalist shroud fanatics like the members of STURP ... and they are most definitely NOT credible "researchers".

So, don't bother to post any claims from Christian shroud fanatics and/or shroud websites.

You are still back right at square one - if you intend to post evidence from genuine "researchers" then they need to be truly independent properly qualified sources ... and that means, as has pointed out here on every single page, genuine research scientists publishing their evidence in a genuine research journal ... just as the radiocarbon scientists did when publishing their results in Nature ...

... you have to produce something which is genuinely comparable with the paper in Nature.

Unfortunately you have been asked to do exactly that for 17 pages now and so far you have absolutely zero.

Ian,
- I'm just not going to be able to respond to the objections that my superficial answers provoke.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the textile analysis

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Again, I'm not sure to what you're referring.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the pigment analyses, microscopical and chemical

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- It's my understanding that most research (by far) has concluded that any sign of pigment is miniscule.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the iconographic similarity to other religious art of the period

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I haven't really thought much about this issue.
- One question is, "Just how similar is it"?
- Otherwise, it has been suggested that any real similarity is due to the Shroud's actual presence as tradition suggests -- that artist depiction was originally based upon the Shroud.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the ease with which the shroud has been replicated using period methods

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- In my opinion, that's a myth.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the lack of correspondence of the image on the cloth to that which would result from it being used as a shroud

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- Offhand, I can't remember much about the proposed explanation(s), but at least one sounded reasonable to me.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

I take it you'll be ignoring the vast amount of other evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

• the fact that the sloth does not correspond to the usual Jewish burial practices and even the biblical description

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- In my opinion,
1) It deviates from the usual practices only in ways to be expected given the alleged circumstances, and
2) It does not deviate from the Biblical description if one is familiar with the culture and carefully parses what is actually said.
--- Jabba

 

[Ladewig]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I haven't really thought much about this issue.
- One question is, "Just how similar is it"?
- Otherwise, it has been suggested that any real similarity is due to the Shroud's actual presence as tradition suggests -- that artist depiction was originally based upon the Shroud.
--- Jabba

Fascinating.

Jabba, do you have even a superficial understanding of what we are talking about? Your answer surprises me very much - this topic has been talked about several times in this thread.

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

If I may add to catsmate1's list

• the fact that the modern RCC accepts that the Shroud was not the burial cloth of Jesus.

• Ladewig (and everybody else),
  - As far as I can tell, that just isn't true. The church doesn't claim that the Shroud is authentic -- but as far as I can tell, that is the direction to which they are currently leaning.
  --- Jabba

 

[Ladewig]

Catsmate (and everybody else),
- I'm not sure to what you're referring here.

--- Jabba

This answer demonstrates quite conclusively that you are not really qualified to talk about "the preponderance of Shroud evidence."

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- I'm just not going to be able to respond to the objections that my superficial answers provoke.
--- Jabba

Just provide evidence from any independent properly qualified scientist who has published in a proper research Journal claiming the C14 was wrong.

Do not do anything else, just do that (do not post beliefs from Christian fanatics).

Where is this evidence against the C14 ... 17 pages waiting for it now.

 

[Jabba]

If I may add to catsmate1's list

• the textile analysis including types of analysis that did not exist in the 1300's (UV and X-ray fluorescence)

• Ladewig (and everybody else),
  - I'm afraid that you'll have to be more specific. From an old guys memory, what I've read claims the opposite.
  --- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Some superficial answers

If I may add to catsmate1's list

• the iconographic similarity to other religious art of the period including dimensions, which if were associated with a living person, would defy all rational explanation

Ladewig (and everybody else),
- Again, I can't remember the different proposed explanations, but at least one of them seemed reasonable to me.

- Whew...

--- Jabba