Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

1) You seem to be basing your assertion that this is true because you believe there might have been an invisible repair to the shroud in the area where the sample for C14 testing was taken. 2) I believe the evidence to support this that you are putting forth is a paper by M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino in 2005 (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf) and perhaps the paper 2005 paper by Ray Rogers.

Dave,

- I've numbered your 'questions' in the above paragraph so as to better respond to them.

- Re #1:
- I still perceive "invisible" repair as one of the possible explanations in spite of the arguments against it. The same goes for contamination, statistical flaws and deliberate collusion by someone in the involved scientific community (Michael Tite of the British Museum, for instance).
- Those are some of the possible explanations so far conceived of by researchers, but I think we should add the possibility of explanations not yet conceived of.
- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...

Re #2:Those plus the two papers to which I refer in post #2084, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf) by Marino and Pryor -- and others that I'll track down if you wish.

- If you feel like I haven't answered these questions, please let me know...
- I'll start to work on your remaining questions tomorrow morning.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Davefoc,
- I hate to ask this of you, but could you possibly act as spokesperson for your side and funnel the questions/comments from the others (as well as yourself) to me, and in the order you would most want them answered?
- I had asked Dinwar to do that, but I don't think he ever answered.
- His q/c's are probably the most troubling, so you might put some of his at the top of the list.
- I'll do my best to answer every q/c you pose.
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Davefoc,
- I hate to ask this of you, but could you possibly act as spokesperson for your side and funnel the questions/comments from the others (as well as yourself) to me, and in the order you would most want them answered?

I have bad news and worse news.

The bad news is that I, for one, have no intention of letting anyone else speak for me.

The worse news is that there's almost no chance I'm the only one who feels this way.

- I had asked Dinwar to do that, but I don't think he ever answered.

I think you are having a lot of selective memory problems.

In any case, this is a forum for open discussion and it's not your place to be attempting to alter that format to suit yourself.

How wuuuude!

- His q/c's are probably the most troubling, so you might put some of his at the top of the list.

There's only one:

I'm not bothering with the rest of your garbage. Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.

Pretend all you like, but everyone is pefectly well able to see that you've refused/are completely unable to answer it.

Put it at the top of the list indeed.

You really are insulting people's intelligence here.

- I'll do my best to answer every q/c you pose.
--- Jabba

Either this is blatantly untrue or your best is woefully inadequate.

At this late stage I'd suggest that it doesn't really matter which.

 

[tsig]

delete

 

[tsig]

Dave,

- I've numbered your 'questions' in the above paragraph so as to better respond to them.

- Re #1:
- I still perceive "invisible" repair as one of the possible explanations in spite of the arguments against it. The same goes for contamination, statistical flaws and deliberate collusion by someone in the involved scientific community (Michael Tite of the British Museum, for instance).
- Those are some of the possible explanations so far conceived of by researchers, but I think we should add the possibility of explanations not yet conceived of.
- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...

Re #2:Those plus the two papers to which I refer in post #2084, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf) by Marino and Pryor -- and others that I'll track down if you wish.

- If you feel like I haven't answered these questions, please let me know...
- I'll start to work on your remaining questions tomorrow morning.

--- Jabba

The "invisible" repair would have to be done at the same time the shroud was first exhibited, by unknown weavers using techniques that have never been seen before of since.

 

[Dinwar]

The "invisible" repair would have to be done at the same time the shroud was first exhibited, by unknown weavers using techniques that have never been seen before of since.

There IS a technique known as "invisible patching". It's invisible from only one side, and was discussed earlier in this thread. The reason it was dismissed was that both sides of the shroud were inspected, and neither show evidence of the invisible patch technique being used.

 

[pakeha]

^
That.

Ay, Jabba.
Just what IS your motive in writing about the TS?

...
- I still perceive "invisible" repair as one of the possible explanations in spite of the arguments against it.

That's the only response Jabba gives to Dave's excellent post?

The same goes for contamination, statistical flaws and deliberate collusion by someone in the involved scientific community (Michael Tite of the British Museum, for instance).

Is Jabba seriously asking us to ignore his failure to come to grips with the contamination problem?
Is Jabba seriously asking us to believe there is a conspiracy to deny the TS's authenticity?
In that case, shouldn't this thread be moved to the conspiracy forum?

- Those are some of the possible explanations so far conceived of by researchers, but I think we should add the possibility of explanations not yet conceived of.
Jabba, is this your way of introducing 'chemtrails' into your argument?

- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...

Not the Pray Manuscript again!

Re #2:Those plus the two papers to which I refer in post #2084, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf), and, (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf) by Marino and Pryor -- and others that I'll track down if you wish.

Shall I again post up the refutations you have been offered on those papers, Jabba?

Davefoc,
- I hate to ask this of you, but could you possibly act as spokesperson for your side and funnel the questions/comments from the others (as well as yourself) to me, and in the order you would most want them answered?
- I had asked Dinwar to do that, but I don't think he ever answered.
- His q/c's are probably the most troubling, so you might put some of his at the top of the list.
- I'll do my best to answer every q/c you pose.
--- Jabba

Jabba seems to think that he is in a position to lay down the rules of 'debate' here.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba, you only wants to talk with one person here? Sure, I'll help you with that. I have deleted the link to your own site, and welcome to my ignore list.

I think you are on he right track here... eleminate everyone else from your discussion, and eventually, you might actual win it.

Hans

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba has learnt well the lessons of Gerry and DOC

 

[Mashuna]

Dave,

- I've numbered your 'questions' in the above paragraph so as to better respond to them.

- Re #1:
- I still perceive "invisible" repair as one of the possible explanations in spite of the arguments against it. The same goes for contamination, statistical flaws and deliberate collusion by someone in the involved scientific community (Michael Tite of the British Museum, for instance).
- Those are some of the possible explanations so far conceived of by researchers, but I think we should add the possibility of explanations not yet conceived of.- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...

There's no point debating with you if you're going to add the highlighted portion to your argument. It's wilfully dishonest. Again, going back to your court analogy, you'd be the defence lawyer claiming that the court can't convict, because although all the evidence is on their side, there might be some other evidence, somewhere, that exonerates your client. You haven't found it, but you just know your client is innocent, so it must exist somewhere.

How far do you think that argument will take you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've been away from the site for a couple of months. Nice to see that this thread hasn't moved on at all in those couple of months.

How productive are you finding your debating technique, Jabba?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- And, keep in mind that I believe that there are very significant pieces of scientific and historical evidence that the Shroud is much older than the 14th century -- and consequently, there just about "has to be" some sort of error in the dating...

In other words, what you wish were true is more likely to be true than what the scientific evidence that not even the Vatican disputes indicates is true.

You say you're not a young man any more. I'd have thought that by now you might have learnt that reality is what reality is, rather than being something that conforms to what you wish it to be. I'll just try a quick experiment...

*wishes very hard for a naked Scarlett Johansson to walk through the door*

...

Nope.

As the old family saying goes - wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up first.

 

[Multivac]

I have bad news and worse news.

The bad news is that I, for one, have no intention of letting anyone else speak for me.

Same here.

The worse news is that there's almost no chance I'm the only one who feels this way.

Seconded.

Jabba, as far as I can see you have offered no proof that the C14 tests were flawed in any way. If you have proof that I have missed, please post a link to it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.
- When I choose, not only does everyone fuss at me for my answer, they fuss at me for what I don't answer. With you deciding what I should answer next, they'd have to fuss at you for that second complaint. That would be a big help.
- And, I would begin piling up answers to your approval...
--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Why does the title of your post say "Carbon Dating" when the post has nothing to do with carbon dating?

- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.

Dave's not here, man.

- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.

Answer or don't answer. There is no choose.

- When I choose, not only does everyone fuss at me for my answer, they fuss at me for what I don't answer.

That's because you persist in answering questions that nobody has asked and point-blank refusing to answer the questions that they have asked.

With you deciding what I should answer next, they'd have to fuss at you for that second complaint.

Want to bet on that?

That would be a big help.

Yeah, I can see how getting everyone here to complain to a third party about your blatantly dishonest waffledross would help you concentrate on producing even more of it.

That's why it's not going to happen.

- And, I would begin piling up answers to your approval...

You haven't managed to pile up one answer yet.


Just in case you've forgotten, it's the answer to this that you need to provide:

I'm not bothering with the rest of your garbage. Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.

 

[zooterkin]

- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.

What's a 'q/c'?

 

[Jabba]

What's a 'q/c'?

- Question/Comment.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, you seem to be under the misapprehension that what we are discussing is a difference of opinion; we are not. We are discussing an irrefutable fact (that the carbon dating shows the shroud to be of mediaeval origin); one that for some reason you seem to think you can forget if you post enough loonwaffle.

If we were discussing something subjective like art appreciation, or something unprovable like UFOs or religion, then it would be right and proper to discuss opinions.

With facts on the table (like carbon dating results), opinion is of little value.

As for the suggestion that all sceptics funnel their questions through one person, I concur with the Pharaoh. It's not going to happen, and you do not get to set the parameters of the debate. Particularly if by doing so, you remove facts from the list of things you are prepared to discuss.

 

[dafydd]

- And, I would begin piling up answers to your approval...

Give us a taster. Pile up one answer.

 

[Jabba]

Effective Debate

Have you given some thought as to what would be entailed in making an invisible patch? I don't mean an invisible patch that a skillful repair person might be able to do that conceivably could be made nearly invisible to a naked eye. I mean a patch that would be undetectable on close inspection by somebody with a microscope or magnifying glass. How would you do it? The problem is what do you do with the thread ends of the patch. You might pull out all the vertical and horizontal (warp and weft) that pass through the patch in question and completely reweave the patch area. Or perhaps you envision a technology whereby the end threads of the patch could be attached in an undetectable way with the existing threads of the fabric? Could you provide some information on what process you are thinking of that is so good enough to fool people that have done detailed examinations of the shroud?

Dave,

- Before I get started -- somewhere above I had said that my "offer" still stands. Obviously, that's the wrong word. It should have been request," or even "plea." I think that you can solve the basic problem that this thread has.
- On with the show.

- Your implication above is correct. As far as I can tell, "invisible" in the sense you mean doesn't seem possible. Though researchers are still arguing the case, and I'll need to go back and dig up their current arguments.

- Here's a case where I have to decide which road to take. Should I go on to your next question, or should I start digging?
- I'll choose the former. If you get this in time, let me know if you'd prefer the digging.

- I've been addressing you as "Dave" rather than "davefoc." If that's a problem, please let me know.

- Unfortunately, this is starting to remind me of a scene from Pretty Woman.
Hollister: Mr. Lewis? How's it going so far?
Edward: Pretty well, I think. I think we need some major sucking up.
Hollister: Very well, sir. You're… not only handsome, but a powerful man. I could see the second you walked in here, you were someone to reckon with…

--- Jabba