Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Why I have assumed that Rogers was telling the truth.

#714

- So, unless you guys can come up with some sort of consensus about the sub... issue I should be addressing, or give me one of your other reasons for discounting Rogers' paper, I’ll make one last attempt to convince you that there is no significant reason for believing that Rogers was lying about Gonella giving him the alleged material.--- Jabba

#718

OK.
I'll bite. When did you post up what convinced you Rogers was telling the truth?

#726

Paheka,
- I posted the following here.
...As he and Gonella subsequently insisted, Cardinal Ballestrero had given
them full permission to take such initiatives for the benefit of future Shroud research,
and in the light of the open, official manner in which they took the samples and
documented these, there is no reason to doubt this.
Thus when in May 1993 American physician Dr. Garza Leoncio-Valdes arrived in
Turin looking for samples of the Shroud to examine in pursuance of his idea of how
the C14 date might have been skewed, Riggi readily volunteered samples from both
the ‘superfluous’ fragments that he had trimmed away from the C14 sample, also
from the back-of-the-head bloodstains...
... From as early as the 1970s Riggi was associated with Italy’s Fondazione 3M, and
entrusted extensive archive of his Shroud materials. into their care, a collection which
apparently remains available to all bona fide Shroud researchers. When Luigi
Gonella died in August of last year Riggi began planning to incorporate his friend’s
equally extensive Shroud materials into the same archive...
- So, at least Wilson's description of events makes Rogers' claim about Gonella's help sound perfectly reasonable -- it seems to me."

- Before that, in #640, I said the following:
- I wasn't trying to provide a reference showing that Gonella had actually done what Rogers claimed, and didn't figure that I needed to. After all, when Rogers' article was published, Gonella was still alive, and apparently never contradicted Rogers claim. So, if Rogers lied about Gonellas' help, they must have been in cahoots.
- Besides, as far as I can tell Rogers was a stand-up guy, had begun his research on the Shroud as a skeptic, and had accepted the carbon dating until a few years before his death.

- Otherwise, as you might guess, I've been reading mostly positive articles about Rogers', and his claims, in general -- and again, I don't remember these things very well, and didn't keep good, written, track of them -- which is why I'm happy to do more scouring for evidence...

--- Jabba

#727

You can't really be serious in implying Ian Wilson's obituary convinced you the C14 dating was problematic.

#730

Paheka,

- I’m going to try to take one baby step at a time.
- Note that the question I was answering was strictly about Rogers telling the truth – I had no intention of implying that such was what convinced me that the C14 dating was problematic. (I’m probably more “literal” than most people and tend to answer the exact question -- when others would respond to what the questioner was “getting at” instead. I think this does lead to misunderstandings.)

- Do you have any significant reservations or questions as to what I am saying so far?

… Jabba

#732

Of course, Jabba.
You're simply trying to avoid talking about the C14 dating of the TS.

No problem.
My questions and comments remain significant and basically the same in the case you choose to divert the discussion from the C14 dating of the TS to why you believe in Rogers' honesty.

So.
Are you telling us you were convinced by those obituaries of Rogers' honesty?

#736

Paheka,
- No. Firstly, I'm not convinced of anything. I do 'lean' in certain directions -- some more than others -- and, I do lean considerably in the direction of Rogers' honesty about this issue.
- Let me know if you don't believe what I just said. Otherwise, I'll move on to my next disclaimer regarding your sentence above.
--- Jabba

Paheka,
- But also, I didn't really answer your question (#718 - When did you post up what convinced you Rogers was telling the truth?) properly. The first part of my answer in #726 was what I had already posted that was relevant to the issue, but it wasn't what "convinced" me. My quote from what I posted in#640 was simply a very general explanation of how I did actually come to assume (sort of take for granted) that Rogers was telling the truth.
- And, I didn't mean to say that assuming the way I did was especially "scientific." But, it was an accurate expression of how I formed that sort of subconscious assumption -- and so far, I still think it's probably the correct assumption.

- Otherwise, I am talking about the C14 dating of the TS. Rogers' honesty is one of the many sub-sub-sub-issues of the C14 sub-issue.
- And one of the basic problems facing persons trying to debate a controversial issue is that these issues tend to be much more complicated than we expect -- and, we do in fact need to deal with all sorts of sub-sub-sub-etc-issues. I'm not making this up -- I'm just describing it with the best words with which I can, so far, come up.

--- Jabba

 

[Brainache]

Jabba,

I think at this point it might be useful for you to ask yourself "What would convince me that the Shroud is a fake?", if your answer is: "Nothing! It can't be a fake!", then you should stop trying to debate the science and acknowledge that your position is one of unfalsifiable faith, not facts.

Unfortunately for your faith, the facts say it's fake.

 

[Dinwar]

- And one of the basic problems facing persons trying to debate a controversial issue is that these issues tend to be much more complicated than we expect -- and, we do in fact need to deal with all sorts of sub-sub-sub-etc-issues.

Actually, we don't. We know the composition of the threads (unless you can prove that that info is invalid). We know the composition of the threads of the shroud (unless you can prove that info is invalid). We know that those two are as nearly identical as you can get in a natural aquatic system with plant fibers (unless you can prove that info is invalid). We know the C14 date of the threads (unless you can prove that info is invalid). Thus, we know the C14 data of the shroud.


Every time I say "unless you can prove that info is invalid" is what we call an opportunity for you to disprove the argument. Honest--yours, mine, or anyone else's--doesn't factor into this. And attempts to make something more complicated than it need be are nothing more than obfuscation.

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba,

I think at this point it might be useful for you to ask yourself "What would convince me that the Shroud is a fake?", if your answer is: "Nothing! It can't be a fake!", then you should stop trying to debate the science and acknowledge that your position is one of unfalsifiable faith, not facts.

Unfortunately for your faith, the facts say it's fake.

Oooh, I think we are getting closer to progress. In fact we may already be at the finish line.

 

[Giordano]

#714

#718

#726

#727

#730


#732


#736Paheka,
- But also, I didn't really answer your question (#718 - When did you post up what convinced you Rogers was telling the truth?) properly. The first part of my answer in #726 was what I had already posted that was relevant to the issue, but it wasn't what "convinced" me. My quote from what I posted in#640 was simply a very general explanation of how I did actually come to assume (sort of take for granted) that Rogers was telling the truth.
- And, I didn't mean to say that assuming the way I did was especially "scientific." But, it was an accurate expression of how I formed that sort of subconscious assumption -- and so far, I still think it's probably the correct assumption.

- Otherwise, I am talking about the C14 dating of the TS. Rogers' honesty is one of the many sub-sub-sub-issues of the C14 sub-issue.
- And one of the basic problems facing persons trying to debate a controversial issue is that these issues tend to be much more complicated than we expect -- and, we do in fact need to deal with all sorts of sub-sub-sub-etc-issues. I'm not making this up -- I'm just describing it with the best words with which I can, so far, come up.

--- Jabba

All that cutting and pasting, and explanation instead of simply answering, "It's a feeling I have?"

Can you answer the question in post #737? That may save everyone a lot of meandering...

 

[IanS]

#714

#718

#726

#727

#730


#732


#736Paheka,
- But also, I didn't really answer your question .....


... etc. etc. .... more and more diversion, ducking, and failure to properly answer any question at all ...


.... etc. etc.


- Otherwise, I am talking about the C14 dating of the TS.
--- Jabba

Jabba, just stop it now. You are not fooling anyone here. You have been ducking all pertinent questions for 19 pages now. It's time for you to do the honest thing and answer the question now ... here it is yet again (13th time?) -

Jabba - please stop ducking the issues and just answer the question I’ve asked you a dozen times now … here it is again -

- it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed from the shroud for the first time in 500 years, the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and their own textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg examined the shroud in microscopic detail and stated that it was quite certain that there was definitely no patch or repair anywhere near the C14 sample site, and that Rogers was definitely wrong ever to suggest there was any such patch or repair.


Why do you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg have both repeatedly stated that fact?

Answer that please.

ps- When you do answer that question (as I am sure you will?), keep also the following in mind -

1. When the C14 sample was cut, all 20-30 official observers inc. the film makers agreed that the sample was not part of any patch or repair.

2. All three radiocarbon labs specifically examined their samples under high power microscopes (with photos), and confirmed there was definitely no repair, patch, or re-weave on any of their samples.

3. Recall what I said in post #701, namely - it’s utterly absurd to believe that Poor Clare Nuns (or anyone else) who made such huge and obvious crude patches to repair the shroud right next the image, would somehow go to the apparently impossible extreme of making a microscopically invisible repair at a completely insignificant corner of the shroud well away from the image.

 

[pakeha]

...Water trace chemistry is highly variable, and by "highly" I mean I could tell you which month a sample was taken given the combination of a few compounds. It's based on a huge number of factors, including the bedrock, fertilizers, any cities nearby, weather, etc. Many of these would have been more important prior to the Industrial Revolution, as human waste disposal was considerably less sophisticated ....

These are techniques that numerous nations use to solve multi-billion dollar questions in multiple industries. They're pretty well-established.

So really, the shroud believers have two options: either prove that this analysis is wrong in some way, or prove that for some reason the technique can't work properly with the shroud. ...

Thanks for a most interesting take on the accuracy of the TS dating. I'm here to learn and love to read posts like this.

... ... I didn't mean to say that assuming the way I did was especially "scientific." But, it was an accurate expression of how I formed that sort of subconscious assumption -- and so far, I still think it's probably the correct assumption.

- Otherwise, I am talking about the C14 dating of the TS. Rogers' honesty is one of the many sub-sub-sub-issues of the C14 sub-issue.
- And one of the basic problems facing persons trying to debate a controversial issue is that these issues tend to be much more complicated than we expect -- and, we do in fact need to deal with all sorts of sub-sub-sub-etc-issues. I'm not making this up -- I'm just describing it with the best words with which I can, so far, come up. --- Jabba

Are you telling us you ah "formed that sort of subconscious assumption" by reading obituaries?

... We know the composition of the threads (unless you can prove that that info is invalid). We know the composition of the threads of the shroud (unless you can prove that info is invalid). We know that those two are as nearly identical as you can get in a natural aquatic system with plant fibers (unless you can prove that info is invalid). We know the C14 date of the threads (unless you can prove that info is invalid). Thus, we know the C14 data of the shroud. ...

Granted, but those obituaries say differently, don't they?

 

[catsmate]

Paheka,
- No. Firstly, I'm not convinced of anything. I do 'lean' in certain directions -- some more than others -- and, I do lean considerably in the direction of Rogers' honesty about this issue.
- Let me know if you don't believe what I just said. Otherwise, I'll move on to my next disclaimer regarding your sentence above.
--- Jabba

I'm sorry but I just cannot believe this is true. You've repetedly refused to accept strong scientific evidence of the fakery of the shroud while enthusiastically embracing every dubious piece of pro-validity pseudoscience.
Furthermore you've continued to rehash arguments that have been debunked.
This is not the behaviour of someone with an open mind, it is typical of the believer desperately trying to quiet their own doubts.

 

[Jabba]

Why I had assumed that Rogers was telling the truth.

Are you telling us you ah "formed that sort of subconscious assumption" by reading obituaries?

Paheka,
- No. I was trying to tell you that it was not what formed that sort of subconscious assumption.
- Taken from #741: "But also, I didn't really answer your question (#718 - When did you post up what convinced you Rogers was telling the truth?) properly. The first part of my answer in #726 was what I had already posted that was relevant to the issue, but it wasn't what "convinced" me. My quote from what I posted in#640 was simply a very general explanation of how I did actually come to assume (sort of take for granted) that Rogers was telling the truth."
--- Jabba

 

[Aepervius]

Looks like a dodge.

DOC do that a lot.

"I'll come back to you in two weeks".


Thinking of it actually a lot of creationist and similars use the same method, never coming back to point where they obviously have no answers.

 

[Jabba]

MY honesty

- No. Firstly, I'm not convinced of anything. I do 'lean' in certain directions -- some more than others -- and, I do lean considerably in the direction of Rogers' honesty about this issue...

I'm sorry but I just cannot believe this is true.

Catsmate,
- We're probably stuck.
- Though if you have the time, you might review my posts to see where I say, or even seem to be saying, that I "know," or am convinced of, something. From my own perspective, I'm always "hedging my bets."
- Back in "the old days," I kept hearing Fess Parker (as Davey Crockett on TV) saying, "First, be sure you're right; then, go ahead." I would grit my teeth and think, "But, I'm never sure I'm Right!!!"
--- Jabba

 

[Aepervius]

After rereading the last few pages and Jabba's argument, frankly I petition to rename the shroud "Credulus Sudarium".

All this talk of subs makes me hungry.

Subway ?

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba,

I think at this point it might be useful for you to ask yourself "What would convince me that the Shroud is a fake?", if your answer is: "Nothing! It can't be a fake!", then you should stop trying to debate the science and acknowledge that your position is one of unfalsifiable faith, not facts.

- it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed from the shroud for the first time in 500 years, the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and their own textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg examined the shroud in microscopic detail and stated that it was quite certain that there was definitely no patch or repair anywhere near the C14 sample site, and that Rogers was definitely wrong ever to suggest there was any such patch or repair.


Why do you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg have both repeatedly stated that fact?

Answer that please.

Jabba, we should put aside all discussions about knowing and believing and preponderance of evidence and being sure. We can finish this thread with a single post if you address these two questions. Ignore your sub- and sub-sub- plan. Just address either of these questions.


ETA: and as for requesting more time. There is absolutely no reason the first question would require any time at all. Please answer these questions.

 

[Jabba]

Regrouping

- I think I’ll try to “regroup” a little. I’m hoping that this relates to what Paladin suggested.

1. I tend to believe that the carbon dating was invalid.
2. What’s your evidence?
3. Rogers’ paper (I never specifically said that, but it IS my basic reason.)
4. But, Rogers was lying about Gonella’s contribution and his own access to the necessary material.
5. I doubt that.
6. Why?
7. (How I came to believe that Rogers was probably telling the truth.)
8. Obituaries convinced you that Rogers was telling the truth?
9. Firstly, I’m not convinced; I just lean in that direction.
10. I don’t believe you.
11. We seem to be stuck
11.1. Though, I’m hardly ever convinced of anything. Check it out.
11.2. And, I’m also very honest. Trust me!


- Overall, I'm still claiming that the Rogers' paper is probably valid in regard to the area dated being anomalous to the larger cloth.
- And so far, I understand your main reasons for dismissing the Rogers Paper are 1) that Rogers was lying about his access to the necessary material, and 2) that the most credible researchers say that there is no way that the piece examined was part of a patch.
- From my perspective, you do have (many) more reasons, but I think that those above are primary.
- Further above, is how I see our discussion so far, and I'm accepting that we should probably establish Rogers' honesty in regard to Gonella's help as a basic disagreement -- a disagreement that we are unable to resolve at this time. And, as far as I can tell, your side doesn't believe even that my position re Rogers' honesty is a reasonable one.

- Consequently, I will now try to address the patch issue... Do I hear any Amens or Hallelujahs?

--- Jabba

 

[realpaladin]

- I think I’ll try to “regroup” a little. I’m hoping that this relates to what Paladin suggested.

1. I tend to believe that the carbon dating was invalid.
2. What’s your evidence?
3. Rogers’ paper (I never specifically said that, but it IS my basic reason.)
4. But, Rogers was lying about Gonella’s contribution and his own access to the necessary material.
5. I doubt that.
6. Why?
7. (How I came to believe that Rogers was probably telling the truth.)
8. Obituaries convinced you that Rogers was telling the truth?
9. Firstly, I’m not convinced; I just lean in that direction.
10. I don’t believe you.
11. We seem to be stuck
11.1. Though, I’m hardly ever convinced of anything. Check it out.
11.2. And, I’m also very honest. Trust me!


- Overall, I'm still claiming that the Rogers' paper is probably valid in regard to the area dated being anomalous to the larger cloth.
- And so far, I understand your main reasons for dismissing the Rogers Paper are 1) that Rogers was lying about his access to the necessary material, and 2) that the most credible researchers say that there is no way that the piece examined was part of a patch.
- From my perspective, you do have (many) more reasons, but I think that those above are primary.
- Further above, is how I see our discussion so far, and I'm accepting that we should probably establish Rogers' honesty in regard to Gonella's help as a basic disagreement -- a disagreement that we are unable to resolve at this time. And, as far as I can tell, your side doesn't believe even that my position re Rogers' honesty is a reasonable one.

- Consequently, I will now try to address the patch issue... Do I hear any Amens or Hallelujahs?

--- Jabba

You get a 'Hell Yeah!' from me

Although all further discussion is now actually moot since we can not agree on Rogers' lying.

But go ahead.. the patching and darning....

 

[tsig]

DOC do that a lot.

"I'll come back to you in two weeks".


Thinking of it actually a lot of creationist and similars use the same method, never coming back to point where they obviously have no answers.

Yes, the pattern is becoming clear, ask questions, ignore the answers then dodge, dodge, dodge.

 

[Dinwar]

- Overall, I'm still claiming that the Rogers' paper is probably valid in regard to the area dated being anomalous to the larger cloth.

So.....evidence that's sufficient to settle international treaties, disputes between multinational corporations, and PUT A MAN TO DEATH in some states is not sufficient for you to conclude that the dating is probably accurate.

- And so far, I understand your main reasons for dismissing the Rogers Paper are 1) that Rogers was lying about his access to the necessary material, and 2) that the most credible researchers say that there is no way that the piece examined was part of a patch.

That's akin to summarizing Romeo and Julliet by saying "Two lovers commit suicide". There are specific, detailed reasons, which you have yet to refute, including both scientific data and the Vatican's own testimony, to believe that the examined patch of the shroud was not a patch.

- From my perspective, you do have (many) more reasons, but I think that those above are primary.

You seem to think that science is done by character assasination. It's not. I don't care who this Rogers guy is--what do the DATA say? If Rogers was lying he may still be right (blind pigs and truffles), and if he was honest he may still be wrong (honest people make mistakes all the time--that's why journals have retractions sections).

- Further above, is how I see our discussion so far, and I'm accepting that we should probably establish Rogers' honesty in regard to Gonella's help as a basic disagreement -- a disagreement that we are unable to resolve at this time. And, as far as I can tell, your side doesn't believe even that my position re Rogers' honesty is a reasonable one.

It's irrelevant and a red herring. The data have been presented here, sufficient data for any reasonable researcher to draw their own conclusions REGARDLESS of Rogers' position.

 

[Ladewig]

Christ on a stretcher, What is it going to take for you to answer this most basic of all questions? Until you answer this question there is no need at all to discuss Rogers's honesty or competency.


For the 30th time:

Jabba, please address the following fact -

- it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that in 2002 when the backing cloth was removed from the shroud for the first time in 500 years, the Vatican’s own science advisor Professor Guiseppe Ghibirti and their own textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg examined the shroud in microscopic detail and stated that it was quite certain that there was definitely no patch or repair anywhere near the C14 sample site, and that Rogers was definitely wrong ever to suggest there was any such patch or repair.


Why do you think Ghiberti and Flury-Lemberg have both repeatedly stated that fact?

Answer that please.

 

[pakeha]

Paheka,
-...what I posted in[/STRIKE]#640 was simply a very general explanation of how I did actually come to assume (sort of take for granted) that Rogers was telling the truth."

OK.
So you came to assume (sort of take for granted) Rogers was telling the truth after reading obituaries.
Have I nailed it yet?

Subway ?

You're on!

6. Why?
7. (How I came to believe that Rogers was probably telling the truth.)
8. Obituaries convinced you that Rogers was telling the truth?
9. Firstly, I’m not convinced; I just lean in that direction.

Hey, Jabba, we got to the point where you've clarified that you weren't convinced or even leaning in that direction, but rather you assume (sort of take for granted)it.
Keep up, man, keep up!

...as far as I can tell, your side doesn't believe even that my position re Rogers' honesty is a reasonable one.

- Consequently, I will now try to address the patch issue...

Do we have any assurances you won't quote from obituaries?

 

[pakeha]

Paheka,
-...what I posted in[/STRIKE]#640 was simply a very general explanation of how I did actually come to assume (sort of take for granted) that Rogers was telling the truth."

OK.
So you came to assume (sort of take for granted) Rogers was telling the truth after reading obituaries.
Have I nailed it yet?

Subway ?

You're on!

6. Why?
7. (How I came to believe that Rogers was probably telling the truth.)
8. Obituaries convinced you that Rogers was telling the truth?
9. Firstly, I’m not convinced; I just lean in that direction.

Hey, Jabba, we got to the point where you've clarified that you weren't convinced or even leaning in that direction, but rather you assume (sort of take for granted)it.
Keep up, man, keep up!

...as far as I can tell, your side doesn't believe even that my position re Rogers' honesty is a reasonable one.

- Consequently, I will now try to address the patch issue...

Do we have any assurances you won't quote from obituaries?