Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[tsig]

And yet you reckon starting threads-within-threads is the way forward?

He's got enough threads going to weave his own shroud.

(invisible weave no less)

 

[tsig]

Dafyyd,
- Sure. To some extent, they have asked the same, say, 10 questions. But, if you really go back and count, you'll see that I've been inundated with probably hundreds of different specific questions (and comments). Counting this response, I've responded to 7 different q/c's on this page alone.
--- Jabba

I'm responding to your post, notice the lack of information in this post?

 

[tsig]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Which you have yet to take.





Go!

Unfortunately if you're going in circles the last step takes you back to where you started.

 

[tsig]

Me:
- "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.
Gao,
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

So the forger wrapped a dead body in the cloth. You are underestimating an artists devotion to his craft.

 

[dafydd]

So the forger wrapped a dead body in the cloth. You are underestimating an artists devotion to his craft.

It's far more sensible to believe that a dead super hero came back to life and burned his image in a cloth via a burst of unknown radiation.

 

[catsmate]

So the forger wrapped a dead body in the cloth. You are underestimating an artists devotion to his craft.

Well the shroud image doesn't much resemble that of an actual body, the proportions are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

Well the shroud image doesn't much resemble that of an actual body, the proportions are wrong.

That's because Jesus was an alien.

 

[pakeha]

...Everyone else, did I miss the part where a reliable source confirmed that there was no image beneath the "blood" stains?

........................
Claiming that world renowned experts on ancient textiles were too incompetent to careful examine both sides of an artifact with magnifying glasses before selecting a location for C14 testing is beyond ridiculous.

To the question above the dotted line- no,you haven't missed it. I've been on the lookout for that myself.
To the comment below the dotted line- it adds to the conspiracy , you know know the conspiracy headed by ... you know, the usual suspects.

Jabba, in the 40 years you've been studying the TS, have you ever come across speculation as to just WHY the Vatican doesn't want 'the truth' known?

 

[dafydd]

To the question above the dotted line- no,you haven't missed it. I've been on the lookout for that myself.
To the comment below the dotted line- it adds to the conspiracy , you know know the conspiracy headed by ... you know, the usual suspects.

Jabba, in the 40 years you've been studying the TS, have you ever come across speculation as to just WHY the Vatican doesn't want 'the truth' known?

Forty years!? Are you serious?

 

[Dinwar]

Well the shroud image doesn't much resemble that of an actual body, the proportions are wrong.

Got a link for that? I vaguely remember seeing something about this now that you remind me, but I can't say for certain and I'd love to see it again.

 

[pakeha]

Forty years!? Are you serious?

From the Atheist forum:

Jabba (Offline)
Veteran

Posts: 1,075
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Schenectady, NY
June 15, 2011, 17:57
...
- I've been reading about the Shroud for a LONG time (like 40 years).
- As you know, I do want to believe that it's authentic, so most of what I have read has been pointed in that direction... But then, in reading all that stuff prior to starting this debate about the Shroud (see http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3891), I also encountered most of the objections to it. I had also encountered answers to most of those objections. I just hadn't kept good track of who said what, when and where.
- Whatever, I had become pretty sure that the Shroud really was authentic. So, when Steen (I think it was), in other threads, kept asking me to point to something that I thought was "supernatural," I realized that the image on the Shroud might be my most-supported example of something supernatural. And having the Internet at my fingertips, I figured that I could track down the necessary evidence. It just might take awhile.

- If you go to the link I referred to above, you'll see that I did provide a list of my reasons at the outset. Unfortunately, I've had to do this thread in three separate sections, so it's not easy to track it back to its beginning. That beginning section is listed on page 4 of the Religion forum.

My bolding.

 

[dafydd]

Forty years and he still doesn't know that it is a fake!?

 

[catsmate]

Forty years and he still doesn't know that it is a fake!?

Doesn't want to accept it's a fake.
Marino, the ex-Benedictine who co-wrote that garbage that Jabba repestedly cites, has been involved for about forty years also.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,
If the 14C evidence is correct, which it is, there is no other form of evidence that can counter it. Think about it: the 14C dating establishes that the shroud did not exist at the time of Christ. Blood vs pigment, a vague report of the shroud's existence before the 12th century, whatever else you might come up with, all becomes meaningless if the shroud could not have existed when Christ died. Even if the shroud floated in the air, talked in tongues, and cured people of leprosy when rubbed on them, the 14C dating says it could not have been Christ's burial shroud.

I'll repeat that one more time: if the 14C dating is correct, the S of T did not exist when Christ died, and could not have been his burial shroud.

So, there is no need to get distracted. Everyone here wants your answer to the same question: What is the scientifically documented and peer-reviewed evidence that the 14C dating is incorrect? The "evidence" you already provided in this regard has been convincingly discredited. You've been reading intensely about the shroud for decades, you participate in multiple on-line forums on this topic all the time, and you certainly should easily be able to address that question. Please make that your very next answer.

 

[pakeha]

^
Well said!

Doesn't want to accept it's a fake.
Marino, the ex-Benedictine who co-wrote that garbage that Jabba repestedly cites, has been involved for about forty years also.

Yes.
Jabba apparently attended at least one TS 'workshop', has written emails to Uni professors on the subject of blood (arterial vs venous), scientific magazines to determine what sort of peer review they're subject to, and much more.
Jabba has spent a lot of time and effort here.
And come up with nothing to support his belief in the TS' authenticity.

The emotional investment in this project must be tremendous for these people.
As I've mentioned before, it reads very similar to the emotional investment of people who have been scammed systematically by romance and Forex scammers. Or crop circle pushers.

When I've read those TS blogs and forums, I'm fascinated by their inability to cope with the carbon 14 dating.
And with the fact that the Vatican has played an interesting game here- on the one hand, bowing to science's conclusion, on the other permitting and tolerating these fanatic groups to foment a belief in the TS's authenticity.
Not nice, in my opinion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Jabba

What is the evidence that there isn't an image under the blood apart from your own assertions?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Jabba,
If the 14C evidence is correct, which it is, there is no other form of evidence that can counter it. Think about it: the 14C dating establishes that the shroud did not exist at the time of Christ. Blood vs pigment, a vague report of the shroud's existence before the 12th century, whatever else you might come up with, all becomes meaningless if the shroud could not have existed when Christ died. Even if the shroud floated in the air, talked in tongues, and cured people of leprosy when rubbed on them, the 14C dating says it could not have been Christ's burial shroud.

I'll repeat that one more time: if the 14C dating is correct, the S of T did not exist when Christ died, and could not have been his burial shroud.

So, there is no need to get distracted. Everyone here wants your answer to the same question: What is the scientifically documented and peer-reviewed evidence that the 14C dating is incorrect? The "evidence" you already provided in this regard has been convincingly discredited. You've been reading intensely about the shroud for decades, you participate in multiple on-line forums on this topic all the time, and you certainly should easily be able to address that question. Please make that your very next answer.

The bolded part says it all!

 

[Jabba]

Blood

Me:
- "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.

Gao:
Please explain how this is even remotely useful for dating.

Me:
- Good question.
- Unfortunately, I need to ask you one first. If you were to accept that my claims above are true, would you accept that there had to be a dead body involved?

1) Why would a dead body be required for any of that? Heck, even aside from the fact that someone could use blood to paint, why couldn't they have cut a guy a bit, wrapped the clotharound him, then unwrapped him and patched the guy up?

2)Even if I were to accept that this meant that there had to be a corpse for some reason, how would this help with dating in the slightest?

Gao,

Re #1: I think you're right. The body didn't have to be dead. And worse, based merely upon my claims (A & B) above, the "body" didn't even have to be that of a past or present living creature -- it could have been a statue or something.

Mostly, from just A&B above, I'm forced to think that the image and apparent bloodstains are not painted on. They are, somehow, some sort of imprint. Painting -- with the above results -- should have been extremely difficult, and seemingly unnecessary (Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

I would need to include more premises (and evidence supporting all premises involved) in order to conclude that the "body" was that of a once living, creature... I'll sure try to get around to doing that, but first I need to address your second question.

Re #2: For one thing, the alleged 14th century artist claiming responsibility for the Shroud allegedly claimed it was a painting. If the Shroud wasn't painted, we can pretty much discard this alleged person's alleged claim (and, there are more reasons for being highly suspicious of his claim, anyway), and a little bit of evidence for the dating being correct can be tossed.

For another thing, Walter McCrone -- the one hand's-on scientist (other than those involved in the carbon dating) claiming the Shroud to be a fake -- claimed that there was no blood on the Shroud, and that the Shroud was painted. Consequently, we can probably toss his testimony -- about the date of the Shroud -- as well.

Otherwise, I'll need to introduce some more premises in order to complete my logical picture. Hopefully, I'll be able to lay out my extended syllogism, and start providing more (for some reason, the other members of this forum would replace "more" with "some") evidence for my different premises before I get distracted.

Jabba

 

[Garrette]

Stick with the C14 dating. Disprove that, then the rest may possibly have relevance.
You complain of there being too much to respond to, but there really isn't.

Address the C14 dating. You can do that not by reposting what you have posted, but by the two following actions:

1. Post a link to a scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal.

2. Respond to comments when people have read the link; this includes responding to the comments on the links you have already posted.

You have repeatedly failed to do both these things. Until you do, there are exactly zero grounds for going further.

Until you do, the C14 dating stands.

 

[Ladewig]

(Why bother avoiding having the image under the 'blood'?).

Maybe the forger did some practice runs and decided that adding the blood after the image was generated did not produce the color or the effect the forger desired. After that, in the next iteration it would be absurdly easy to put the blood down by sprinkling it over the sheet and then adding the image.

But more importantly, you have not proven that there is no image under the blood. Why don't you do that before talking about difficult a task it was. Or, and this may just sound wacky, why don't you put aside the blood/image issue and focus only on the C14?