Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[dafydd]

Dafydd,
- I like signing my posts. I like my name.
--- Jabba

It's not yours, it's from a character in Star Wars.

 

[dafydd]

Robo,
- I'll never claim to "prove" anything.
- I have to admit that I want the Shroud to be authentic, and can't be impartial -- but for now, I do think that the preponderance of evidence does favor authenticity.
--- Jabba

What you think has no bearing on the matter. The evidence points to the shroud being a fake.

 

[Lowpro]

Robo,
- I'll never claim to "prove" anything.
- I have to admit that I want the Shroud to be authentic, and can't be impartial -- but for now, I do think that the preponderance of evidence does favor authenticity.--- Jabba

The problem here is that your standards of evidence are pretty poor.

 

[Dinwar]

Jabba, as I remarked in the other thread: Even if we assume that the blood is real blood, you've got no justification for arguing that this is an authentic relic rather than a fraud. It is TRIVIAL to put blood on a cloth. Humans quite literally manufacture the stuff.

- My claim is that the preponderance of evidence almost proves that the Shroud had to be draped over a dead body, and that no "painting" was involved.

Painting and blood are not mutually exclusive. I can easily paint a picture, then put real blood on the parts that require it. I've got a few knives lying around, and slicing a finger a few times isn't that big a deal. I once let girl slice my arm merely because she wanted to see blood, and it was easier to go along with it, and I'll admit it--she was hot.

- Then, the preponderance of evidence clearly favors that the body had been crucified.

Except that even if this is real blood, it DOES NOT mean that 1) it was draped over a dead body, or 2) that said body was crucified.

- Then, there were like 150 apparent wounds on the body -- all supporting the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion -- some of those going against traditional conceptions, but have proved to make scientific sense.

Yeah, see, here's the rub--the Bible was a rather well-known document in the Middle Ages. The fact that the number of wounds is in agreement with the Bible, even if it's true (you've provided NO evidence to support this, at least none that withstands even a cursory analysis), doesn't rule out fakery. It would be trivial for someone to read the Bible and put the right number of wounds onto the cloth.

- And, the blood evidence is just the beginning of supportive evidence that it actually was the burial shroud of the Biblical Jesus.

That's what you said about the C14 dating--right up until the point where you ran into people who knew what they were talking about. Seems "the beginning of the evidence" is a goalpost on wheels...

 

[pakeha]

You are always going to do something. When are you actually going to do it? Why couldn't blood have been painted, dripped or smeared on this piece of cloth? If it is blood, why would it be from Jesus? Where are you going to get a specimen of his DNA?

Iknow! From the Holy prepuce!!!!

...
- My claim is that the preponderance of evidence almost proves that the Shroud had to be draped over a dead body, and that no "painting" was involved. ...

And?
Is there anything to show it wasn't draped over a dead body in the 14th century?
Don't you understand that the carbon fourteen dating makes all those other claims beside the point?

.... I do think that the preponderance of evidence does favor authenticity. ...

How many times have you repeated that statement over the last several months?

 

[AdMan]

Jabba, as I remarked in the other thread: Even if we assume that the blood is real blood, you've got no justification for arguing that this is an authentic relic rather than a fraud. It is TRIVIAL to put blood on a cloth. Humans quite literally manufacture the stuff.

Not only would it be trivially easy to apply real blood, but why would the artist/hoaxer not use real blood?

 

[dafydd]

How many times have you repeated that statement over the last several months?

With no effect.

 

[Lowpro]

Not only would it be trivially easy to apply real blood, but why would the artist/hoaxer not use real blood?

Amateurs.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Isn't one thread of BS about the TS enough?
No scientific evidence for authenticity in the other thread and I think no one expects any scientific evidence in this thread, just the typical mambo-jumbo nonsense disguised as law-speak as ever.
I predict all arguments of Jabba of this thread will be of the same quality as in the other one. (BTW Jar-Jar-Binks seems much more appropriate than Jabba the Hut)

 

[Tatyana]

Pied Piper,

- Cool. Good questions.

- Hopefully, my last post will be sufficient to answer your first question.
- My claim is that the preponderance of evidence almost proves that the Shroud had to be draped over a dead body, and that no "painting" was involved.
- Then, the preponderance of evidence clearly favors that the body had been crucified.
- Then, there were like 150 apparent wounds on the body -- all supporting the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion -- some of those going against traditional conceptions, but have proved to make scientific sense.

- And, the blood evidence is just the beginning of supportive evidence that it actually was the burial shroud of the Biblical Jesus.

- I am currently trying to deal with the carbon dating issue under "Miracle of the Shroud."

- I'll be back.

--- Jabba

While you are at it, would you provide proof for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo

Here is a list of other relics that can be found around Europe.

http://www.christiantimelines.com/relics.htm

If you like the Shroud of Turin, you should really go to Italy.

It is almost impossible to enter a church without being regaled with some holy relic, the manger of Jesus, a portion of the crown of thorns, one of the finger bones of Jesus, the tears of Jesus, the hair of the Virgin Mary........

There are enough portions of the cross that Jesus was crucified upon to build a decent sized house.

Of course there are some real things in some of the churches, like the graves of Michelangelo and Rafael, which are really cool.

I will have to go through my photos or google-fu for the other shroud we saw in a small church in Rome, it looked almost identical to the shroud of Turin.

 

[Vortigern99]

Guys! Everybody! World! I have evidence of a pink-and-purple dragon who lives in my garage.

I will slowly roll out the data on this.

For a while, though, I'll post rhetorical responses to any objections, without offering any support for my patently absurd claim.

Right now, though, I need to go mow the lawn.

See you in a month!

 

[pakeha]

double post.

 

[dafydd]

While you are at it, would you provide proof for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo

Here is a list of other relics that can be found around Europe.

http://www.christiantimelines.com/relics.htm

If you like the Shroud of Turin, you should really go to Italy.

It is almost impossible to enter a church without being regaled with some holy relic, the manger of Jesus, a portion of the crown of thorns, one of the finger bones of Jesus, the tears of Jesus, the hair of the Virgin Mary........

There are enough portions of the cross that Jesus was crucified upon to build a decent sized house.

Of course there are some real things in some of the churches, like the graves of Michelangelo and Rafael, which are really cool.

I will have to go through my photos or google-fu for the other shroud we saw in a small church in Rome, it looked almost identical to the shroud of Turin.

''I will not be positive, but I think we have seen as much as a keg of these nails.'' Mark Twain, writing about the nails from the Cross that he had seen on a tour of Europe.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Ward,

- You must be younger than I thought -- all my equally elderly friends are having memory problems similar to my own...
- And, I actually did mention it to my Doctor, but she immediately dismissed it.

- As to my "friends" ... I didn't mean to say or imply that I had "many," of them. I was able to recruit a small "team" (4, including myself), and mostly figured that they could help me especially with references, as I had done such a poor job of keeping track of my own. But it took a few months (several?) to put the website together, and decide how we wanted to present our case -- and by the time we did, my friends had found more pressing matters to which to attend (I couldn't blame them).
- But then, I also have a "leading" problem. I spent three years in the Army, getting out as a Captain. Luckily, I was also a pilot, and didn't have to do much leading -- I probably wouldn't be here today if I did, as one of my subordinates would have surely "fragged" me. Anyway, I suspect that if I was a better leader, I'd still have a team.
- I do have some well-known "advisers," and they do try to help -- but, they don't have the time, nor the urge, to participate here, or on my website...
- I've tried to get followers of http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/ to come over here, and/or my site, but no one has shown up here, and only a couple have registered on my site. I had expected a lot of interest from my fellow shroudies, but apparently, they aren't all that.

- And finally, I was actually hoping that you would give me a helping hand.
- Were you able to actually see the article I linked (http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ng_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud)? For some reason, it keeps 'disappearing'...
- You've been encouraging in the past, so I was hoping that you at least would experience some reasonable doubt from that article -- if you didn't already have some...

- Anyway, I appreciate your patience. Hopefully, my appreciation won't put you in bad standing with your compatriots..

--- Rich

Rich (Jabba),

Please do not mistake my genuine concern for your health (which I'm glad your doctor thinks is OK) for encouraging your belief in the "authenticity" of the Shroud of Turin.

I'm with the rest of the crowd here in thinking that there is currently no cause for "reasonable doubt" concerning the C14 dating.

I think the criticisms of the C14 tests that you have found seem like desperate and panicky reactions by people will do anything to keep the romantic dream of the shroud alive. I'll change my opinion if and when the evidence improves.

My main contribution to this thread was posting the youtube video of the ridiculous explanation of the non-distorted image (By the way, here's a longer, better, crazier version of the same video. The entire thing's a laugh, but the specific part I linked to before is at 35:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRK_sVokZxM.) The fact that you even entertained taking that idea seriously made me reluctant to participate in this thread at all, and I have pretty much steered clear until I began to believe that you had a genuine medical problem based on a combination of your complaints about memory and on your seeming inability to mentally process what was being posted here. I'm glad it's not a medical problem, but sad that it is a problem.

And, I'm not here to gain nor maintain, as you say, "standing with your compatriots." I'm here because I find the discussion enjoyable. This particular discussion has been mostly not enjoyable which is why I've stayed away. It's repetitive and seemingly pointless. Sorry.

You seem like a nice guy and I'm glad that your mental health is OK. I don't know why you have invested so much time and effort into this relic which is ridiculous on its face. It clearly offers you some comfort, but that's beyond my understanding.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more help and I hope you find something more productive to occupy your time. There's lots of stuff out there that's equally fascinating or moreso---and it's real.

Ward

 

[George 152]

Spreading blood on a piece of cloth is quite easy. Try it.

But it's not going to still be there visibly as blood 2000 years later

 

[dafydd]

But it's not going to still be there visibly as blood 2000 years later

Just another fact that Jabba will ignore.

 

[Agatha]

If I were a 14th century forger, making a fake "holy relic" for fun and profit, the very first thing I would do is study the Bible for crucifixion accounts, so that my fake relic matched the Biblical accounts. The second thing I would do is to find a suitable source of human blood.

The one thing I'm not likely to be able to do is to find a suitable piece of cloth from the 1st century, but that's OK because in the 14th century nobody has heard of radiocarbon dating, and I will figure that a contemporary 14th century piece of cloth will be fine to make my fake relic with.

 

[Lowpro]

If I were a 14th century forger, making a fake "holy relic" for fun and profit, the very first thing I would do is study the Bible for crucifixion accounts, so that my fake relic matched the Biblical accounts. The second thing I would do is to find a suitable source of human blood.

The one thing I'm not likely to be able to do is to find a suitable piece of cloth from the 1st century, but that's OK because in the 14th century nobody has heard of radiocarbon dating, and I will figure that a contemporary 14th century piece of cloth will be fine to make my fake relic with.

You know what would be of GREAT irony? If the forger is looking for a suitable cloth to use as his fake shroud, goes to the market and buys some dirty cloth for a song and THAT is actually the actual Shroud of Jesus! It's like what happens on Antique Roadshow.

 

[Dinwar]

But it's not going to still be there visibly as blood 2000 years later

How long would the stains last? My goal is always to get the stains OUT--it freaks people out when you show up to a job site with blood on your jeans.

If I were a 14th century forger, making a fake "holy relic" for fun and profit, the very first thing I would do is study the Bible for crucifixion accounts, so that my fake relic matched the Biblical accounts. The second thing I would do is to find a suitable source of human blood.

As Commander Sir Samuel Vimes often quips, the best person to have guarding valuable things is a rat-bastard of an ex-theif. They know all the tricks. Similarly, if you want to prove something's not a forgery, start by thinking "How would I forge it if I were so inclined?" Rule out all of those ways, and you may have a genuine relic on your hands. Starting with "It's real, how do I prove it?" is a fantastic way to get duped. Worse, once you get duped you're likely to resent people pointing out the proof of your duped-ness, as we see here.

 

[C_Felix]

I do not know this Jabba person who posts here. This is the first thread of his I've come across.

So...forgive me if I'm taking what appears to highly systematic troll too seriously.

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.

- Appropriate blood means human blood, but it also means blood exudate, serum contraction rings, chemistry of a severe beating, and probably more.
- When you see how appropriate the blood is, you'll see that it couldn't have been painted on the Shroud.
- And, the only hands on scientist except the carbon dating team to discount authenticity was Walter McCrone, who also insisted that there was no blood on the Shroud and the Shroud was a painting.
- There is more.

- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
- Guys coming from my other thread won't believe that I'll ever roll out the evidence, but I have lots of "excuses" for being so slow over there. As I get a chance, I'll roll out those excuses here.

--- Jabba

While you're at it, please solve the globe effect problem.