• 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:
- So far, all the references refer to a study done by Luigi Garlaschelli, and paid for by a group of atheists. The following seems like a pretty good rebuttal.
http://shroud.com/pdfs/soonsresponse.pdf
Click to expand...

You're losing your tenuous grip on the English language, Jabba. What in blazes are you talking about here? Who's rebutting whom? What's the rebuttal about? Why should I click on your link? Are you talking C14 dating, or the image?

Also, please provide the amount of C12 contamination necessary to cause a 1st century cloth to yield a 14th century age via C14 dating. As this is the exact thing your entire argument hinges on, it's the single most critical piece of data you could possibly provide. In fact, without it we can safely dismiss EVERY ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS as nonsense. Either provide it , or admit you can't. One or the other.
 
^
Well spotted, O Pharaoh, well spotted.

Jabba, could you explain in your own words why that article you linked to is a good rebuttal of Luigi Garlaschelli's experiment?

You do remember, of course, that 3D stuff was torn apart here?
 
Jabba said:
- Who are you guys referring to when you say that someone has fully reproduced the image?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Read this thread.

Jabba said:
- So far, all the references refer to a study done by Luigi Garlaschelli, and paid for by a group of atheists. The following seems like a pretty good rebuttal.
http://shroud.com/pdfs/soonsresponse.pdf
Click to expand...
FFS there have been at least three reproductions of the shroud linked to in this thread and I know of at least two others. Your "rebuttal" is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
 
pakeha said:
And has nothing to do with the carbon dating of the TS.
Click to expand...
Au contraire, it diverts attention form Jabba's inability to rebut the radiocarbon dating which I suspect is the point of this little diversion.
 
catsmate1 said:
Au contraire, it diverts attention form Jabba's inability to rebut the radiocarbon dating which I suspect is the point of this little diversion.
Click to expand...

It's hard to admit that you have wasted thirty years of your life on this nonsense. I feel sorry for him.
 
catsmate1 said:
Read this thread.


FFS there have been at least three reproductions of the shroud linked to in this thread and I know of at least two others. Your "rebuttal" is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
Click to expand...
Catsmate,
- What are the at least other two reproductions?
- And, you'll need to explain how Soons' rebuttal is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
--- Jabba
 
- And, you'll need to explain how Soons' rebuttal is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Now that's just rich, coming from you! You've been trying for FOURTY PAGES to refute the C14 dating without even DISCUSSING the C14 dating, much less showing that it's rubbish, factually wrong, etc. You want to be allowed to play by different rules than the rest of us. Trouble is, you can't. The quality of evidence that you accept to support your possition is the quality of evidence an honest person would accept as a refutation of their possition. The fact that you expect the evidence refuting your stance ot be vastly superior to the evidence you accept as supporting it makes you a dishonest debater. This isn't a personal attack; rather, it's a demonstration of a continued trend of dishonesty on your part which allows us to assume that anything you say from here on out is wrong or fraudulant. You've got a track record of lies, Jabba--at this point, it's safe to assume that you're going to lie in the future, and therefore anything you say without supporting evidence will be dismissed as not worth my time.

Besides, the fact that there have been three reproductions of the shroud which have already been linked to in this thread makes any statement to the effect that the shroud can't be reproduced pure, weapons-grade bolognaium. And the fact that you can't answer a basic question about the very system you're trying to refute means that you don't understand what you're talking about.
 
The paper to which Jabba links purports to be a rebuttal to the reproduction made by the scientist in this story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005 which of course is only one of many reproductions made over the years.

The rebuttal paper says that because this particular reproduction doesn't reproduce the shroud "exactly", the scientist may have used different pigments and not used real blood (which they insist is on the shroud), then a 14th century forger could not have made the shroud. That particular piece of reasoning baffles me.
 
dafydd said:
It's hard to admit that you have wasted thirty years of your life on this nonsense. I feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...
Yep. Usual wooster problem.

Jabba said:
Catsmate,
- What are the at least other two reproductions?
Click to expand...
Read the thread. I'm not wasting my time doing your homework.

Jabba said:
- And, you'll need to explain how Soons' rebuttal is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
No. I'm not participating in your attempt to divert attention from the radiocarbon dating any more. Address that.
 
Jabba said:
- And, you'll need to explain how Soons' rebuttal is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues.
Click to expand...
You'll be doing the same exercise for the carbon dating results, and explaining why they are wrong, then?



Thought not.
 
Hmm.
The same reaction from so many forum members.
Does that tell you something, Jabba?

Jabba said:
...- And, you'll need to explain how Soons' rebuttal is rubbish, factually wrong and fails to address the issues. ...
Click to expand...

As everyone writes, first of all do what you proposed to do, Jabba.
You remember what that was, don't you?
 
Carbon Dating

- You can see how the reproduction-of-the-image issue relates to carbon dating by going back to #1709.
--- Jabba
 
- You can see how the reproduction of the image issue relates to carbon dating by going back to #1709.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant. If you can't demonstrate a basic knowledge of the system involved (and believe me, asking for the amount of contamination being proposed is VERY basic) you've got absolutely no credibility when it comes to discussing radiometric dating. As I have said repeatedly, your ENTIRE argument--ALL OF IT--rests on this number. As you have continuously failed to provide it, I can only conclude you don't know and don't want to find the number, and therefore are not honestly interested in an actual discussion of the facts involved. You want to play lawyer, ignoring that this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, not a legal one.

Agatha said:
The paper to which Jabba links purports to be a rebuttal to the reproduction made by the scientist in this story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...5943HL20091005 which of course is only one of many reproductions made over the years.
Click to expand...
I do have a slight problem with this paper. The fact that the shroud can be reproduced isnt' definitive proof that it's a fake--after all, forged $100 bills don't prove that $100 bills don't exist.

I'm not saying that the shroud is real; I'm just saying that the researcher overstated his evidence a bit. It's an occupational hazard.

catsmate1 said:
Read the thread. I'm not wasting my time doing your homework.
Click to expand...
If you don't, no one will. Jabba certainly isn't going to--he can't even be bothered to find references he already has!
 
Jabba, is there some reason you have trouble doing links?
Or quoting your own post?

By the way, I've just reread that post.
What on earth does it have to do with the carbon dating of the TS?
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating

pakeha said:
1) Jabba, is there some reason you have trouble doing links?
Or quoting your own post?

2) By the way, I've just reread that post.
What on earth does it have to do with the carbon dating of the TS?
Click to expand...
Pakeha,

Re #1:
- I'm always in a hurry.

Re #2:
- One of my claims is that there are two kinds of evidence related to the carbon dating -- direct and indirect. By direct, I mean evidence related to the methodology; by indirect, I mean the evidence related to the results. If I could find proof that the Shroud actually existed in 900 CE (indirect evidence), for instance, we'd have proof that there was something wrong with the carbon dating.
- If I can show that no one today has been able to recreate certain critical aspects of the Shroud, I wouldn't be showing proof that the carbon dating was wrong, but in my own opinion at least, I would be showing significant evidence that it was wrong -- too which, I think that I can show additional significant indirect evidence disputing the validity of the dating.
- That's what I think that it has to do with the carbon dating.

--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Pakeha,

Re #1:
- I'm always in a hurry.
Click to expand...
You're never in a hurry to present evidence.
If I could find proof that the Shroud actually existed in 900 CE (indirect evidence),
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence? After thirty years of searching the reason for that hasn't dawned on you yet?
 
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