• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005 This was posted back on the first or second page of the thread. It's not honest to keep repeating claims such as "nobody today can reproduce the image" when it has been shown in this very thread that people can and have reproduced it.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Over at his own forum, Jabba keeps saying that all he wants to do is cast "reasonable doubt" on the C14 result.
Click to expand...

And we are back to the statements so similar to lying that they cannot be distinguished from lying. No, Jabba, you are not trying to cast reasonable doubt. If you were, then your position would be "a number of factors cast doubt on the C14 results, therefore we should throw them all out." Your actual position is there is positive evidence to believe the C14 test were wrong in a very specific way which would have lead to an age of exactly 1,950 years ago if they had been performed correctly.


Let this thread die. Walk away from this thread, Jabba.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
<snip>.
- What I'm calling direct evidence has to do with the methodology of the dating process -- whereas, what I'm calling indirect evidence has to do with the results of the dating process
Click to expand...
This is just stupid. The only way to cast doubt on the radiocarbon dating is using science not just regurgitating nonsense
Jabba said:
- As examples, I see the fact of failing to meet the protocols, and the results of the statistical analyses by Van Haelst, as direct evidence for invalidity.
Click to expand...
Already debunked.
Jabba said:
Even together, these don't constitute proof, but they are direct evidence for invalidity...
Click to expand...
No. They are not. They are pathetic wish-fulfillment on the part of desperate believers.
Jabba said:
Then, I see the apparent fact that no modern scientist or artist can fully explain or reproduce the image, even today, as indirect evidence that no one could have produced it 600 years ago.
Click to expand...
Another of your blatant lies. You've been shown, complete with video, that not only could the shroud be reproduced using medieval technology it has been. Several times.
Stop lying.
Jabba said:
- If it's true that no one could have produced it 600 years ago, the dating "has to be wrong."
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
Jabba said:
- Hope that helps.
- I suspect that it won't, but it's probably the best that I can do re that objection.
Click to expand...
Instead of continuing with this desperate nonsense why not acept the reality of the medieval originof the shroud?
 
Jabba said:
...
- I was just trying to explain what I meant by "has to be wrong."
- As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

An interim conclusion? Jabba, what does your understand of probabilities have to do with the radio carbon dating?
Could you please explain how you calculated that probability, please?

And another quesion.
You brought up Van Haelst's article.
Why didn't you provide a link for it?


Here it is, so that posters can consult your source:
http://www.shroud.com/vanhels5.pdf
 
Carbon Dating

- Who are you guys referring to when you say that someone has fully reproduced the image?
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
- Who are you guys referring to when you say that someone has fully reproduced the image?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8291948.stm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/shroud-of-turin-reproduce_n_310605.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...val-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

I am surprised that a dedicated shroud researcher like yourself was unaware of that. They even recreated your blood spots.

''The study considered to be the most definitive, however, was carried out in 1998 via separate tests by three institutions granted permission by the Vatican.

The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, used radio carbon dating on separate portions of the cloth.

They found the shroud dated from 1260–1390.''
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Zooterkin,
- If I understand your point, I agree.
- I was just trying to explain what I meant by "has to be wrong."
- As we go forth, one of the "interim" conclusions I'll be trying to substantiate is that the probability of someone producing the Shroud 600 years ago is extremely small.--- Jabba
Click to expand...
The probability is 1, which is quite a small number.
 
Worked for me, though it threw up a popup which firefox allowed (grr).

Jabba, you've been given several of those links to people recreating the shroud's image before; are you being dishonest in requesting them again or do you simply not read the posts in this thread?*

Unless you can produce a reliable (peer-reviewed, scientific) paper casting doubt on the carbon dating, there really is no point in pursuing this.

The shroud is a mediaeval forgery, as has been shown by the carbon dating. No amount of sidetracking into whether there is blood on it makes any difference to that; a forger could have used blood so the presence/absence of blood is not probative either way.

If you are having difficulty understanding any aspect of the discussion, as for clarification and I have no doubt that the experts will chime in. But to go in endless circles, reposting the same links to the same discredited papers, asking the same questions, positing the same discredited 'evidence' which is not evidence, and most of all saying you will eventually post something of value but never actually doing so, is just dishonest. This is a discussion forum but it's a sceptics site, what is expected here is evidence. Not courtroom arguments but science. So far, you haven't shown any evidence.

*Yes, I recognise this is a false dichotomy.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
psssst- hey- you know, if everybody else takes your advice, it will have the same effect
Click to expand...

OK, I'm ready.

If I create a post again in this thread for any reason at all, I ask you all to mercilessly mock me.

Mock me in this thread, mock me in other threads, mock me in real life if you see me at a skeptics meetup.

Any reason at all - no exceptions. Forever.

Bye.
 
Ladewig said:
OK, I'm ready.

If I create a post again in this thread for any reason at all, I ask you all to mercilessly mock me.

Mock me in this thread, mock me in other threads, mock me in real life if you see me at a skeptics meetup.

Any reason at all - no exceptions. Forever.

Bye.
Click to expand...
Ladewig,
- Good luck. Bye.
--- Jabba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom