Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Ladewig]

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.

Let's do a really simple one.

You claimed that using three labs instead of seven was one part of an argument to show reasonable doubt on the C14. After reading this thread, do you now understand why the seven/three lab issue is completely irrelevant in establishing whether or not there is reasonable doubt concerning the C14 testing?

 

[welshdean]

I turned my back on the other 'Jabba -TS' thread after reading 19 pages of Jabba offering numerous excuses why he couldn't post any evidence yet, but not to worry, it's coming, soon. I felt like a xtian in 30CE. You know, this generation will not pass etc, etc. Imagine my surprise when I happened upon another thread and the exact same M.O. is being employed by Jabba.

I'm done, he's nowt but a troll.

 

[tsig]

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

Well the T-14 test does indicate he came from under a bridge but I have a microscopic examination (done in my kitchen) that shows he has messiah DNA.

Fasting, prayer and meditation are clearly indicated to solve this conundrum.

 

[Garrette]

Well the T-14 test does indicate he came from under a bridge but I have a microscopic examination (done in my kitchen) that shows he has messiah DNA.

Fasting, prayer and meditation are clearly indicated to solve this conundrum.

Bleed first. Paint later.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

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.

Gao,
- Here, without quibbling for the moment, I accept that "the burden of proof would fall on anyone claiming authenticity," -- though, I wouldn't express it quite like that. I would express it like this -- the great preponderance of evidence that I'm claiming would necessarily take into account the carbon dating, and the apparent need for a supernatural explanation. I just think that when one really looks at the evidence with an open mind, they will see that the evidence actually does favor authenticity -- even with the carbon dating and the suspected requirement for "magic" included in the total evidence...

- Then, to tell you the truth, I can't remember presenting any evidence that the Shroud was ancient ... other than the article from Wikipedia re the Sudarium of Oviedo. Superficially, at least, the Sudarium seems like pretty good evidence that the Shroud was much older than the 14th century.

- I do have much more of what I consider evidence of "ancientness." As always, I'm in a hurry, so I'll go with the easiest to find, first. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex, http://www.google.com/search?q=hung...VN4L1ggfkp5jdCg&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=633, and http://www.factsplusfacts.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm. Clearly not proof, but favorable evidence.

 

[pakeha]

Yes!
And don't forget, what ever you do, wherever you are these:
http://www.polyvore.com/les_chiffoniers_print_zip_leather/thing?id=15863943

will earn you fashion accolades!

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Let's do a really simple one.

You claimed that using three labs instead of seven was one part of an argument to show reasonable doubt on the C14. After reading this thread, do you now understand why the seven/three lab issue is completely irrelevant in establishing whether or not there is reasonable doubt concerning the C14 testing?

Ladewig,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant.

 

[TimCallahan]

Gao,
- Here, without quibbling for the moment, I accept that "the burden of proof would fall on anyone claiming authenticity," -- though, I wouldn't express it quite like that. I would express it like this -- the great preponderance of evidence that I'm claiming would necessarily take into account the carbon dating, and the apparent need for a supernatural explanation. I just think that when one really looks at the evidence with an open mind, they will see that the evidence actually does favor authenticity -- even with the carbon dating and the suspected requirement for "magic" included in the total evidence...

- Then, to tell you the truth, I can't remember presenting any evidence that the Shroud was ancient ... other than the article from Wikipedia re the Sudarium of Oviedo. Superficially, at least, the Sudarium seems like pretty good evidence that the Shroud was much older than the 14th century.

- I do have much more of what I consider evidence of "ancientness." As always, I'm in a hurry, so I'll go with the easiest to find, first. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex, http://www.google.com/search?q=hung...VN4L1ggfkp5jdCg&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=633, and http://www.factsplusfacts.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm. Clearly not proof, but favorable evidence.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. How do medieval representations of the preparation of the body of Jesus for burial in any way impact the validity of the carbon dating of the shroud of Turin?

 

[Gao]

Gao,
- Here, without quibbling for the moment, I accept that "the burden of proof would fall on anyone claiming authenticity," -- though, I wouldn't express it quite like that. I would express it like this -- the great preponderance of evidence that I'm claiming would necessarily take into account the carbon dating, and the apparent need for a supernatural explanation. I just think that when one really looks at the evidence with an open mind, they will see that the evidence actually does favor authenticity -- even with the carbon dating and the suspected requirement for "magic" included in the total evidence...

- Then, to tell you the truth, I can't remember presenting any evidence that the Shroud was ancient ... other than the article from Wikipedia re the Sudarium of Oviedo. Superficially, at least, the Sudarium seems like pretty good evidence that the Shroud was much older than the 14th century.

- I do have much more of what I consider evidence of "ancientness." As always, I'm in a hurry, so I'll go with the easiest to find, first. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex, http://www.google.com/search?q=hung...VN4L1ggfkp5jdCg&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=633, and http://www.factsplusfacts.com/exhibit/praycodex01.htm. Clearly not proof, but favorable evidence.

To be honest, this tells us very little. While it's technically possible (assuming we ignore the carbon dating at the moment) that the Pray codex depicts the shroud, I'm honestly not seeing any real sign that this was the artist's intention, particularly since the defining feature of the shroud is the image of Jesus, which isn't on this.

As for the Sudarium of Oviedo, could you give us a bit more detail on why you think this tells us anything about the shroud?

 

[Wolrab]

Enough with the jibber jabber Jabba, the next time you post, post evidence, not excuses.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Perhaps I'm missing something here. How do medieval representations of the preparation of the body of Jesus for burial in any way impact the validity of the carbon dating of the shroud of Turin?

Tim,
- The Pray Codex existed about 70 years (at least) before the earliest date for carbon dating, and there are several reasons why a forger would be extremely unlikely to have used the codex to design his Shroud.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Regarding the "Pray Codex," I cut and pasted the message below from a previous Shroud thread (I ain't typing new stuff to cover the same ground):

This "Pray Codex" nonsense has been dealt with before. In the top picture, we see the shroud with no herringbone weave. It's just a piece of fabric.

In the bottom picture, we see the shroud again. This time it's seen on some sort of patterned background that looks like a brick diving board. In the close-up of the "herringbone" detail, you can see the empty shroud fabric to the left of the picture. The artist clearly knew how to draw fabric. He did in the top picture and he did in the bottom picture with the empty shroud crumpled on the retangular thing. The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots is clearly not the shroud.

Ward

P.S. Here's the document in question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7863888&postcount=69

 

[catsmate]

Ladewig,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant.

It is irrelevant. All three analyses agreed closely, with each other and with the mass of other evidence, as to the shroud's medieval origin.
State your reasons to believe additional tests would show differently.

Tim,
- The Pray Codex existed about 70 years before the earliest date for carbon dating, and there are several reasons why a forger would be extremely unlikely to have used the codex to design his Shroud.

Evidence for these claims?
And while you're at it what about the numerous differences between the burial pictured in the codex and the shroud image? Are you just going to ignore them because they contradict your opinions?

Regarding the "Pray Codex," I cut and pasted the message below from a previous Shroud thread (I ain't typing new stuff to cover the same ground):

This "Pray Codex" nonsense has been dealt with before. In the top picture, we see the shroud with no herringbone weave. It's just a piece of fabric.

In the bottom picture, we see the shroud again. This time it's seen on some sort of patterned background that looks like a brick diving board. In the close-up of the "herringbone" detail, you can see the empty shroud fabric to the left of the picture. The artist clearly knew how to draw fabric. He did in the top picture and he did in the bottom picture with the empty shroud crumpled on the retangular thing. The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots is clearly not the shroud.

Ward

P.S. Here's the document in question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7863888&postcount=69

Thank you for that.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant.

Thank you. You have made me very happy.

I have been triangulating and gauging your position and I think I have it pretty narrowed down.

I now feel comfortable burning all bridges. I will give your opinions the exact same level of respect that you give our opinions.

 

[Jabba]

Regarding the "Pray Codex," I cut and pasted the message below from a previous Shroud thread (I ain't typing new stuff to cover the same ground):

This "Pray Codex" nonsense has been dealt with before. In the top picture, we see the shroud with no herringbone weave. It's just a piece of fabric.

In the bottom picture, we see the shroud again. This time it's seen on some sort of patterned background that looks like a brick diving board. In the close-up of the "herringbone" detail, you can see the empty shroud fabric to the left of the picture. The artist clearly knew how to draw fabric. He did in the top picture and he did in the bottom picture with the empty shroud crumpled on the retangular thing. The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots is clearly not the shroud.

Ward

P.S. Here's the document in question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7863888&postcount=69

Ward,
- Can you try that again? I'm not following your logic.
- Why is "The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots clearly not the shroud"?
--- Rich

 

[Garrette]

And there we have it. Jabba will discuss the tangents so long as they remain non-threatening, but will not respond to specific comments about his own links in reference to the C14 dating.

Transparent. And if he has any sense of shame, shameful.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ward,
- Can you try that again? I'm not following your logic.

What logic? It's a matter of simple observation. The item that shroudies are describing as the shroud in the codex isn't the shroud at all.

How much more simple does an explanation need to be for you to be able to follow it?

- Why is "The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots clearly not the shroud"?
--- Rich

Because the picture clearly shows the shroud lying on top of the rectangular thing.

You should stop trying to distract the discussion away from the C14 dating. It's clumsy and embarrassing.

 

[Gao]

- Why is "The rectangular thing with the L-shaped dots clearly not the shroud"?

It's a stiff rectangle, when the artist clearly doesn't depict cloth that poorly (see the panel above and what Jesus is lying upon). In fact, the rectangle thing itself seems to have a crumpled cloth on it, which, given the context, is far more likely to be the shroud than the rectangle.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Thank you. You have made me very happy.

I have been triangulating and gauging your position and I think I have it pretty narrowed down.

I now feel comfortable burning all bridges. I will give your opinions the exact same level of respect that you give our opinions.

Ladewig,
- I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean that I give your opinions no respect (from some of your previous posts, I assume that is what you mean here)?
- But to me,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant. seems quite respectful. You guys have made me wonder about the need for seven labs, but you haven't convinced me that the decrease from seven to three is completely irrelevant -- especially, since by doing so the church 1) excluded the second method of carbon dating, as well as Gove's laboratory, and 2) received a lot of "grief" from the scientists.
- The reduction may, indeed, be basically irrelevant, but to conclude that it is completely irrelevant just doesn't seem justified to me.

 

[Garrette]

Ladewig,
- I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean that I give your opinions no respect (from some of your previous posts, I assume that is what you mean here)?
- But to me,
- I can see your point -- seven does seem like overkill. But then, I don't really agree that the reduction from the protocol of seven to three -- by the church -- is completely irrelevant. seems quite respectful. You guys have made me wonder about the need for seven labs, but you haven't convinced me that the decrease from seven to three is completely irrelevant -- especially, since by doing so the church 1) excluded the second method of carbon dating, as well as Gove's laboratory, and 2) received a lot of "grief" from the scientists.
- The reduction may, indeed, be basically irrelevant, but to conclude that it is completely irrelevant just doesn't seem justified to me.

Why? Specifically. Not just that it doesn't seem right.

Did the three labs do anything wrong?

Did the three labs do anything incompletely?

What is questionable about the results of the three labs?

If you can't address those questions then you're objections are still your wishful thinking and nothing more. They do not constitute reasonable doubt or any sort of doubt applicable to scientific and objective evaluation.