Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

^

http://theholyprepuce.tumblr.com/post/7489780082/the-rings-of-saturn-are-the-holy-foreskin-of

Thanks! That linked image, plus the TS leggings in the other thread, really put the E into JREF!

... even *IF* there was blood on the cloth, all it establishes is that there is blood on the cloth. You first have to pass the hurdle of demonstrating that there *IS* blood. ... Then, you need to jump the double hurdle of historical provenance and C14 dating both putting the appearance of the cloth in the 14th century....

This is why there it would be so much more practical to falsify the C14 dating first.

 

[SezMe]

Be sure to debate at length irrelevantr detail, like for example if that dark brown stain is blood from the dragon, or rust, or even old oil.

I think it is something else.

 

[IanS]

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.

Ward

I completely understand and appreciate the sentiments in your above post. And I agree it must seem very repetitive for myself and others to keep asking Jabba to address that one single question on the C14.

It would be less repetitive and probably seem more enjoyable if we did as Jabba would like us to do and move on to discussing more subjective issues such as the blood, the image, and the history etc.

Jabba would clearly like us to discuss those other aspects as evidence for the shroud being 1st century. However, with the best will in the world, it’s clearly not possible to do that, whilst the C14 shows the likely date to be 1260-1390AD.

The honest and very simple solution is that Jabba either needs to cast genuine doubt on the C14 by producing a genuine paper from any independent scientist disputing the C14, or else he needs to accept that the C14 is the most likely date. Then we can all move on.

But what Jabba cannot honestly do, and which would render all discussion inadmissible, is to move on to claiming the other issues as evidence of a 1st century date, whilst the C14 remains an inescapable elephant in the room.

 

[wardenclyffe]

If I sounded like I was attacking the posters in this thread, I didn't mean it (even about Jabba).

Personally, I just don't find the shroud to be particularly interesting. It's more interesting than Bigfoot, but less interesting than The Loch Ness Monster to me.

Obviously it's interesting enough for me to have followed this entire thread. That's mostly because I love posting links to that video. "What video?" you ask. "This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRK_sVokZxM" say I.

I don't know why I love that video as much as I do, but I'll post it in any thread about the Shroud that I can. I just feel it goes way beyond Gigantopithecus and Plesiosaurs to a new, different and desperate level of craziness. I just tickles my fancy. I feel I have nothing else to add to this thread. Everyone else easily points out the fallacies in the arguments. I just like my little video contribution, and I really was concerned about Jabba.

Happy to lurk, but just not my cup of tea. Now, if Jabba had a testable paranormal claim about the Shroud (which had not already been tested [see C14]), then I'd be all over this thread trying to figure out a testing protocol. That's what gets me excited.

Re-lurking (but enjoy the video, especially at 35:30---have I made my point?),

Ward

 

[catsmate]

A little brief searching showed me lots of canvases with blood on them. Here's one representative site, with some suprisingly well done and less-gory-than-I-expected pieces.

http://www.kommiekomiks.com/blood-intro.htm

Does the presence of blood on these canvases make them supernatural?

Than you for that. I think.

 

[tsig]

If I sounded like I was attacking the posters in this thread, I didn't mean it (even about Jabba).

Personally, I just don't find the shroud to be particularly interesting. It's more interesting than Bigfoot, but less interesting than The Loch Ness Monster to me.

Obviously it's interesting enough for me to have followed this entire thread. That's mostly because I love posting links to that video. "What video?" you ask. "This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRK_sVokZxM" say I.

I don't know why I love that video as much as I do, but I'll post it in any thread about the Shroud that I can. I just feel it goes way beyond Gigantopithecus and Plesiosaurs to a new, different and desperate level of craziness. I just tickles my fancy. I feel I have nothing else to add to this thread. Everyone else easily points out the fallacies in the arguments. I just like my little video contribution, and I really was concerned about Jabba.

Happy to lurk, but just not my cup of tea. Now, if Jabba had a testable paranormal claim about the Shroud (which had not already been tested [see C14]), then I'd be all over this thread trying to figure out a testing protocol. That's what gets me excited.

Re-lurking (but enjoy the video, especially at 35:30---have I made my point?),

Ward

Relativity, quantum theory and black holes, oh my.

 

[Resume]

- Not to worry, I'll get around to it.
- I will slowly roll out the evidence for those claims.
--- Jabba

The shroud was forged in a more timely manner than your "rolling" out of evidence.

 

[Jabba]

Effective Debate

- I still think that it's functional to keep the two sub-topics separate. I doubt that anyone agrees, but you guys could help me by supplying titles of either "Blood," or "Carbon Dating" to your posts so as to indicate the sub-topic...

- I'll quit signing my pen-name for now. I can probably do without it.

 

[dafydd]

- I still think that it's functional to keep the two sub-topics separate. I doubt that anyone agrees, but you guys could help me by supplying titles of either "Blood," or "Carbon Dating" to your posts so as to indicate the sub-topic...

- I'll quit signing my pen-name for now. I can probably do without it.

Your blood and carbon theories have been thoroughly debunked, so why bother?

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Me:
#19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.

We've gone over this at the other forum. I pointed you in the direction of lithographic techniques so you could see for yourself why this is a false premise.
However, I confused the technique.
I should have said woodcutting (xilography) technique.
I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcut
The work of Marc Escher is particularly of interest here.
Please keep in mind I am NOT claiming the TS was made using woodcutting, though I don't rule it out, either...

Pakeha,
- But, how does xilography explain "A" and "B" above?

 

[Jabba]

Blood & Carbon Dating

Your blood and carbon theories have been thoroughly debunked, so why bother?

Dafydd,
- No they haven't.

 

[pakeha]

Hi, Jabba.
I think it's easier for all if we concentrate on one subject at time.
Look what happened at the other forum you- it splintered into at least 5 different threads, at your behest, and haas ground to a halt at the moment.

Just stick to the main issue-the carbon 14 dating.

It should be clear by now the 'blood' is evidence of nothing in particular and is a side issue til the dating is recognised.

 

[Multivac]

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 sure why, but this literally made me laugh out loud. Thankyou.

 

[Gao]

Jabba, I've read bits and pieces of this thread, and I'm wondering if you've presented evidence that the shroud is ancient in the first place. After all, there have been countless fake relics over the centuries, so it seems to me that it would be inherently likely that any given "relic" that isn't attested until the medieval period isn't authentic, and that the burden of proof would fall on anyone claiming authenticity, even if I were to agree with you that the carbon dating was faulty.

 

[Jabba]

The quickest of questions. I just need a yes/no answer. No research required.

Is every claim, fact, or assertion that you have made as part of your argument just as valid, as true, as useful, as important, and as relevant now as it was at the beginning of the thread?

...................
I am trying to determine if our counter arguments have caused you to reconsider the value of any single individual piece of evidence (such as the seven labs scheduled, but three labs used).

Ladewig,
- I'm trying to restrict my time to either Blood or Carbon Dating, But I'll try to answer your General question if you point me to my list of claims.

 

[Garrette]

Ladewig,
- I'm trying to restrict my time to either Blood or Carbon Dating, But I'll try to answer your General question if you point me to my list of claims.

He may not be a troll, but he is indistinguishable from one.

 

[catsmate]

Me:
#19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.<snippage>

Instead of wasting time with more bare assertions, why not show evidence for blood on the shroud? You, STURP and the other shroudies have failed to do so yet.

 

[Ladewig]

He may not be a troll, but he is indistinguishable from one.

I wish I had a counterargument to your claim, but I fear that it appears to be one of the most accurate assertions in the entire thread.

 

[pakeha]

Me:
#19. "The ‘blood’ stains were on the cloth prior to the image."
- I claim that because,
A. There is no image below any of the blood stains.
B. There were like 150 different wounds depicted on the depicted body. In order for there to be no image under the depicted wounds, the artist would have had to leave 150 well-shaped "holes" in the image, and most of the holes would have included spaces not visible to the naked eye.Pakeha,
- But, how does xilography explain "A" and "B" above?

Jabba, it's very simple.
The artist leaves 'holes' in each plate for different colours. Didn't you look at what can be done with xilography (woodcuts) a the wiki article I linked to earlier?

Here's one example, from Japan:




Here's another, from 15th century Italy:





Now as you can see, there is no colour overlay, Jabba.
Do you understand now?

So-
A. Can be achieved by an artist.
B. Please establish your claim is true and not just assertion, please. I've requested this before, Jabba. Please stop ignoring the request and come forth with your sources for this claim.


In any case, it has yet to be established there WAS blood there.
And if even there were, the cloth is dated to the 14th century.

Pretending you can sidestep the dating of the cloth is going to bring the discussion to a halt, as it did on the other forum, Jabba.
You already know this.
Why insist?

 

[pakeha]

Ladewig,
- I'm trying to restrict my time to either Blood or Carbon Dating, But I'll try to answer your General question if you point me to my list of claims.

Jabba, are you telling us in all seriousness you don't remember your own claims?
Nor are you able to find them?

Also, Jabba, if you want to limit your answers to non-proven blood and Vatican-accepted carbon dating, then just do it!