Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.

Of course you don't.

The good news is that it doesn't matter.

Yay!

- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.

And neither we should. The muddled way you go about what passes for your research and the abysmally poor way in which you present the meagre results of that effort are your cross to bear, as it were, not ours.

Quite frankly, I'm fairly sure most people would find it more frustrating than it was worth to assist you even if they agreed with your claims.

- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...

I'd say it's way past the point where anyone cares what you admit. You'll continue to believe that the shroud is an authentic first century artefact despite any amount of evidence to the contrary but, as luck would have it, nobody cares.

- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

Meh.

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

 

[Giordano]

- As far as I can tell, there is no rule against paraphrasing (with no names attached) (at http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/#comments) what I think is being said on this (Randi) forum.

- If there is, please let me know.

- I will submit all my paraphrasing here, for your "suggestions," before posting them at the other site (if I remember).

- Hopefully, some of my colleagues over there will start coming over here.

--- Jabba

How about the rules of decency and ethics? People here have repeatedly told you that they object to you interpreting their arguments and posting them elsewhere. Do you believe you have no moral obligation to yield to those views?

May I interpret your posts and send them to the letters column of the NY Times? As you have said about yourself, my memory isn't very good and I can't even be expected to look back in this thread for evidence that has been posted many times. So I may have some trouble accurately interpreting your posts when I write these letters representing you. But let me start... If I recall correctly you believe that Jesus was an alien and the Shroud was a time machine? I may have you mixed up with someone else, but I think that is what you said and I'll mail it to the Times tomorrow.

Actually your attempt to distract from your lack of evidence is again noted.

 

[Akhenaten]

- As far as I can tell, there is no rule against paraphrasing (with no names attached) (at http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/#comments) what I think is being said on this (Randi) forum.

There are no rules against members of the Forum publishing works of fiction in whatever other medium or venue they desire.

- If there is, please let me know.

Why? You'd ignore it like you do everything else here.

- I will submit all my paraphrasing here, for your "suggestions," before posting them at the other site (if I remember).

I have a suggestion for you right now, but the MA says I can't post it.

- Hopefully, some of my colleagues over there will start coming over here.

--- Jabba

I can't for the life of me see why you would be hoping for such a thing, but it seems like there could well be potential for some hilarity in such a development.

Unfortunately, I'd say it's likely that anyone considering posting here will have a little bit of a lurk first, and once they see what's been going on I think that joining in will be the furthest thing from their minds.

 

[wollery]

Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point

Okay, I'll bite.

Invisible reweaving isn't invisible, and certainly not to an expert in textiles, which is what the people who studied the shroud were.

Even if it were invisible (which it isn't, see above), the best reweaving technique uses threads from another part of the same cloth, which means that the carbon dating age would still be valid. The document you yourself provided on French Reweaving stated that quite clearly.

The section of cloth which was carbon dated is on an edge, not that far from a very obvious patch, and well away from the image. The shroud has several very obvious, almost clumsy, patches. Why would anyone decide to patch that particular area using a method that would surely be time-consuming and difficult?

I await your response with bated breath.

 

[catsmate]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.

Then point out the errors, just like we've done for your "evidence".

I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.

Because you continually do this to divert attention and avoid facing facts.
You dance around.

I guess I'll just jump in here to note that even if you totally disproved the accuracy of carbon dating, it still doesn't prove the authenticity of the shroud, that it was indeed the burial shroud of a Jesus that was alleged to be the Christ, or his alleged miraculous deeds.

So you still have that tough row to hoe.

I feel this needs a re-post:

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic and radiocarbon) and is supported by other evidence:

• historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it emerged during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); there is no mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
• physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)
• textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
• testimony: the d’Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
• artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
• reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
• analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
• cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts
• serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue

Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

 

[davefoc]

Then point out the errors, just like we've done for your "evidence".


...
I feel this needs a re-post:

[non C14 arguments that shroud doesn't date from first century]
Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.

Those are strong arguments. One of the mild disagreements between myself and some others in this thread is the degree to which C14 dating should be accepted as the only evidence necessary to prove that this is not a first century artifact. My view has been that various unlikely possibilities make the C14 dating less than definitive, but that when the results are combined with other arguments that it can be objectively determined that this artifact was not associated with a first century Jesus.

I don't know that it deserves to be in the list but for me it is a strong argument against authenticity that the hypothetical historical Jesus was not well known in his own time and certainly hardly known at all for at least seventy years after his death. This makes it very unlikely that any artifact related to him would have survived let alone in this condition. And in fact no artifacts related to Jesus are credibly claimed to exist today.

I think the argument from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the shroud was noted to have well defined bright colors when it first became known about 600 years ago and today the colors have faded to near obscurity deserves a space in your list. Why did the shroud image fade almost completely in the last 600 years and hardly at all in the first 1400 years.

 

[Wolrab]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.
- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...
- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

If only there was some kind of technology available that would allow someone to visit the past and view these debunkings. Maybe some day in the far future there will be a way to record these debunkings so that one can see them again if their memory is insufficient. Until then go back and reread the thread from post #1. Cripes.

 

[TimCallahan]

What amazes me is that there's even a thread on Shroud of Turin at this late date. Bottom line: Carbon 14 dating showed the cloth of the shroud is of medieval origin. What is particularly egregious about all the fudging shroud enthusiasts have done since the definitive carbon 14 tests is that, had the C-14 tests shown the cloth of the shroud to be of first century origin, they'd have been trumpeting it to the skies. When the test didn't show them what they wanted, they started dissing C-14 testing or started insisting that the cloth samples used came from later patches, etc.

 

[davefoc]

What amazes me is that there's even a thread on Shroud of Turin at this late date. Bottom line: Carbon 14 dating showed the cloth of the shroud is of medieval origin. What is particularly egregious about all the fudging shroud enthusiasts have done since the definitive carbon 14 tests is that, had the C-14 tests shown the cloth of the shroud to be of first century origin, they'd have been trumpeting it to the skies. When the test didn't show them what they wanted, they started dissing C-14 testing or started insisting that the cloth samples used came from later patches, etc.

All true, but conspiracy/fringe theories die a very slow death and overwhelming evidence that they aren't true is never enough to eliminate all support for the theories in brief periods of time. And when a fringe theory has a religious element it might be that they just never die.

 

[catsmate]

Those are strong arguments. One of the mild disagreements between myself and some others in this thread is the degree to which C14 dating should be accepted as the only evidence necessary to prove that this is not a first century artifact. My view has been that various unlikely possibilities make the C14 dating less than definitive, but that when the results are combined with other arguments that it can be objectively determined that this artifact was not associated with a first century Jesus.

I agree to an extent; the radiocarbon dating is not unassailable but no shroudie (or other person/group) has introduced significant doubt. Alone I'd consider it quite sufficient to declare the shroud a medieval fake.
In conjunction with the interlocking web of over evidence, well I think arguing the validity of the shroud is silly; there's simply too much, and too coherent, evidence for the fakery.

I don't know that it deserves to be in the list but for me it is a strong argument against authenticity that the hypothetical historical Jesus was not well known in his own time and certainly hardly known at all for at least seventy years after his death. This makes it very unlikely that any artifact related to him would have survived let alone in this condition. And in fact no artifacts related to Jesus are credibly claimed to exist today.

True, though I think this is a weaker point and one that would incite the shroudies to nit-pick about other alleged artifacts, diverting attention from their lack of real case for the shroud.

ETA: I'll modify the eighth point to include this:

• cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355

I think the argument from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the shroud was noted to have well defined bright colors when it first became known about 600 years ago and today the colors have faded to near obscurity deserves a space in your list. Why did the shroud image fade almost completely in the last 600 years and hardly at all in the first 1400 years.

This is a good point and one I will add to future iterations of this list (unless Jabba/Rick suddenly decided to embrace reality and it becomes unnecessary).
I'm sure the shroudies will come up with some explanation. Or resort to god-magic again.

ETA:

• historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

Anyone else have anything to add? All submissions gratefully accepted and examines, though no guarantee of inclusion.
Actually I think the list needs modification and restructuring.

 

[Dinwar]

Pakeha,
- OK. If I want to quote somebody, but can't get permission, I'll paraphrase instead.
- I wouldn't be using you guys as human SHIELDS, I'd be using using you guys as human SPEARS -- i.e., the rest of the Shroudies don't feel "obliged" to answer my reservations, but they should feel obliged to answer yours.
--- Jabba

Let me get this out of the way: While my statements are essentially public, I object to you changing what I write IN ANY WAY, including paraphrasing. I do not believe you will accurately portray what I've written--not only have you shown yourself to be dishonest (you continuously ignore evidence presented to you), but you also have proven you don't understand the systems in question and therefore are incapable of accurately paraphrasing the technical aspects of this discussion. Secondly, I do not have any interest in debating with other believers in the authenticity of the shroud through you. If you're going to be in this conversation, participate yourself.

I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.

This is an example of my previously mentioned dishonesty. A record exists of everything everyone's said in this conversation. This includes where I linked to experts in reweaving techniques (multiple experts), showing that your invisible patch was not possible and would be irrelevant at any rate. This also includes where you admitted to knowing so little about radiometric dating that you thought that the decay rates were linear, proving that your interpretation of radiometric dating was at best an uninformed opinion. THE DATA ARE IN THIS THREAD. If you can't be bothered to look through it, what reason do we have for waisting yet more of our time on you?

- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.

You still honestly don't understand what's wrong with this? You still honestly think that the proper way to analyze a scientific claim (this IS NOT A COURT CASE, and applying court rules is wildly inappropriate to the point of being fraudulant) is to come to the conclusion and then look for evidence?

There's your problem. That's the entirety of it. You aren't looking for the truth, you're looking to bolster your argument. That means that you are unwilling to examine the data objectively. Until you are willing to do so, nothing we say will matter--this is an issue of faith for you, not of data.

 

[Giordano]

Instead of transferring this discussion elsewhere, why don't you take one of your 4 hr Shroud days to re-read this thread, and copy and paste to WORD the posts that counter the pro-Shroud arguments you have put forward? Then spend the next days finding and summarizing the very strongest arguments you have against these posts.

 

[davefoc]

Instead of transferring this discussion elsewhere, why don't you take one of your 4 hr Shroud days to re-read this thread, and copy and paste to WORD the posts that counter the pro-Shroud arguments you have put forward? Then spend the next days finding and summarizing the very strongest arguments you have against these posts.

I've been watching the posts in this thread and have been disappointed about what I thought was the unnecessarily antagonistic posts, but I thought I had said about all that I had to say about that and repeating myself wouldn't serve any purpose.

However, I think Giordano's suggestion goes to what I thought Jabba intended. There seems to be some line between paraphrasing somebody and summarizing their arguments that I don't quite get. Numerous people seem to have taken objection to Jabba's stated intent to paraphrase their arguments on a different site, but Giordana is proposing that Jabba summarize their arguments and post them on a different site. One seems to be OK and the other seems to be something to take offense at. They seem to be quite a similar idea to me.

Regardless, Giordana's approach seems reasonable to me. With respect, Jabba might consider using Catsmate1's summary of the arguments against the authenticity of the shroud as an outline which could be fleshed out with references and details available in this thread. Alternatively, he could look at a few of the shroud skeptic sites for an organized set of arguments against shroud authenticity. I've looked at a few of them and at least one of them had a pretty good organized overview of the arguments against authenticity. I don't know which one that was right now though.

The difficulty is that most or all of the standard arguments against shroud authenticity have been responded to by shroud believers and I am not sure exactly of the value of this exercise. I don't think the shroud believer arguments are valid but I also don't think any discussion is likely to change their minds.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

Let me get this out of the way: While my statements are essentially public, I object to you changing what I write IN ANY WAY, including paraphrasing. I do not believe you will accurately portray what I've written...

Dinwar,
- Four points: 1) Nowhere will I include your name, unless you ask me to include it. 2) I will always run my paraphrase by you for your approval. 3) If you wish me to say exactly what you say, I'll happily comply -- except for the insults. 4) I'll forward only those objections that I personally think deserve further consideration -- objections that I, myself, think are reasonable, and that I fear cannot be effectively answered... 5) If none of that works for you, I'll just have to do the best I can at expressing the objections that seem reasonable to me.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

- I tried to edit a post I just made, and apparently wasn't able to save it. So, I'll repeat it here, and hope that it doesn't show up twice.

Let me get this out of the way: While my statements are essentially public, I object to you changing what I write IN ANY WAY, including paraphrasing. I do not believe you will accurately portray what I've written...

Dinwar,
- Four points: 1) Nowhere will I include your name, unless you ask me to include it. 2) I will always run my paraphrase by you for your approval. 3) If you wish me to say exactly what you say instead, I'll happily comply -- except for the insults. 4) I'll forward only those objections that I personally think deserve further consideration -- objections that I, myself, think are reasonable, and that I fear cannot be effectively answered... 5) If none of that works for you, I'll just have to do the best I can at expressing the objections that seem reasonable to me.

--- Jabba

 

[wardenclyffe]

Jabba,

Feel free to bring the information from Ron (the guy on the other forum) here. Just make sure you get his sources before you do. If you simply quote or paraphrase him, you know the reaction here will be "Says who?".

Ward

 

[Garrette]

I've been watching the posts in this thread and have been disappointed about what I thought was the unnecessarily antagonistic posts, but I thought I had said about all that I had to say about that and repeating myself wouldn't serve any purpose.

However, I think Giordano's suggestion goes to what I thought Jabba intended. There seems to be some line between paraphrasing somebody and summarizing their arguments that I don't quite get. Numerous people seem to have taken objection to Jabba's stated intent to paraphrase their arguments on a different site, but Giordana is proposing that Jabba summarize their arguments and post them on a different site. One seems to be OK and the other seems to be something to take offense at. They seem to be quite a similar idea to me.

Regardless, Giordana's approach seems reasonable to me. With respect, Jabba might consider using Catsmate1's summary of the arguments against the authenticity of the shroud as an outline which could be fleshed out with references and details available in this thread. Alternatively, he could look at a few of the shroud skeptic sites for an organized set of arguments against shroud authenticity. I've looked at a few of them and at least one of them had a pretty good organized overview of the arguments against authenticity. I don't know which one that was right now though.

The difficulty is that most or all of the standard arguments against shroud authenticity have been responded to by shroud believers and I am not sure exactly of the value of this exercise. I don't think the shroud believer arguments are valid but I also don't think any discussion is likely to change their minds.

I'm with davefoc on this. While I find Dinwar's complaints in regard to Jabba's behavior here to be spot on, and while I think this whole exercise is another effort of diversion on Jabba's part, I also think that there is offense being taken where there is none offered and where none would be taken if someone else proposed the same thing.

He is perhaps expressing it poorly, but (ignoring the motivation of diverting attention away from C14) Jabba is looking for help from those on his side of the argument and is being up front with us about it. How many times have skeptics come here from believer forums with paraphrased arguments they wished us to review for weakness? It is the same thing in reverse.

All that being said, Jabba is still in the wrong, still in denial, still ignoring evidence, still refusing to take responsibility for his own research, and still dishonest in this thread. It is just that in this instance I find little to object to in the action he proposes.

 

[IanS]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.
- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...
- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

In the above and in all your posts on pages 81 and 82, you are simply re-stating all the same things you have said dozens of times before in this thread. Eg saying you want to consult other shroud believers, want us to tell you for 108th time why the C14 "debunks" the belief that the shroud is from 1st century, why none of your papers are ever in well-known genuine science research journals, asking us to explain all that to you again and again and again, etc etc.

Nobody here needs to waste even one more second of their lives responding to posts like that from you - it's already been explained to you literally 100 times before in this thread.

The plain fact is that you do not actually have any genuine evidence for your belief in the shroud.

What you call "evidence", and what you keep posting, is only the numerous articles from shroud believing Christians. But that's not genuine unbiased evidence, and despite scores of attempts, your fellow Christian faith believers who write those articles, can never get their beliefs published in genuine science journals.

We've been listening to you for 82 pages, and it's crystal clear that you do not actually have even one genuine independent scientist who has ever published anything criticising the C14. The only people who have criticised it are your fellow Christian shroud believers who are operating purely and entirely on their religious faith.

But your religious faith is not an honest reason to doubt the C14. You do not have any honest reasons to doubt it. Instead all your "reasoning" comes out of a box marked "religious faith and incredulity" ... ie an incredulous disbelief of any/all science (in this case the C14) which contradicts your faithful belief in the 1st century crucifixion of a miraculous supernatural messiah/god.

 

[Dinwar]

1) Nowhere will I include your name, unless you ask me to include it.

Doesn't change anything I said.

2) I will always run my paraphrase by you for your approval.

No need. I reject, without reservations, any and all revisions to my statements by you. If you fix a spelling error I will not approve it.

3) If you wish me to say exactly what you say instead, I'll happily comply -- except for the insults.

See, here's the thing: what you call an insult and what I call an insult are two different things. I imagine that me saying that you're demonstrably too ignorant to discuss radiometric dating coherently sounds like an insult. In fact, it's not--it's a conclusion based on your own behavior and speaks to your ability to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable doubt in radiometric dating methodology. But given your criteria you'll happily cut that part, which will change what I said.

No. You don't get to play that game. You don't know enough about the topics at hand or about hwo to address scientific issues to be trusted to change anything anyone says on those matters.

4) I'll forward only those objections that I personally think deserve further consideration -- objections that I, myself, think are reasonable, and that I fear cannot be effectively answered...

So you're setting yourself up as the one in control of this conversation. Gee, thanks, but no, I think I'll pass.

5) If none of that works for you, I'll just have to do the best I can at expressing the objections that seem reasonable to me.

You don't know enough about radiometric dating to determine what is reasonable or not. You are continuing to ignore what the experts say about reweaving techniques, demonstrating that you're not honest enough to determine what's reasonable or not in that regard. Furthermore, you're not attempting to learn the truth, but rather to support an a priori conclusion, meaning that your entire view of this question is so biased that I simply cannot trust you to determine what counter-arguments (not objections--THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM) are valid.

There seems to be some line between paraphrasing somebody and summarizing their arguments that I don't quite get. Numerous people seem to have taken objection to Jabba's stated intent to paraphrase their arguments on a different site, but Giordana is proposing that Jabba summarize their arguments and post them on a different site. One seems to be OK and the other seems to be something to take offense at. They seem to be quite a similar idea to me.

Don't lump me in with that. My objection to Jabba messing with what I say is that I don't believe Jabba is capable of accurately representing what I say (and that I think he's attempting to manipulate the style of argument to favor his side, whether the facts do or not--something he's admitted to trying before). I've made my reasoning very clear: Jabba demonstrably doesn't know enough about these systems (some of which are quite complex) to accurately paraphrase statements about them. So frankly I wouldn't accept ANY paraphrasing from Jabba.

While I find Dinwar's complaints in regard to Jabba's behavior here to be spot on, and while I think this whole exercise is another effort of diversion on Jabba's part, I also think that there is offense being taken where there is none offered and where none would be taken if someone else proposed the same thing.

Again, don't lump me in with that. I'm not offended; I merely don't trust Jabba to accurately represent what I've said (for the reasons I give above).

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba:

this is an insult from person B toward person A :
Person A "2+3=4"
Person B "You smell like cow pie"

this is an a statement of facts :
Person A "2+3=4"
Person B "You are ignorant of basic arithmetic rules"

Dinwar did not insult you when he said you are ignorant on how radiometric dating works, and i would add that you are ignorant of many other things (proper scientific debate, what count as evidence, why the stuff you keep quoting has been debunked etc...).

I am ignorant of plenty , a trully bazillon of things, I am ignorant of in many domains, and if my ignorance is lower than 99.99% of the human knowledge out there I consider myself blessed/lucky. When somebody tells me I am an ignorant in a domain i am not an expert, chance he is right.

But then again you seem to be unable to recognize that you are arguying from a so weak position, that in the same position as you Wile. E. Coyote would have already fell down toward the rock way way below.