Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Let’s see if I can explain why I wish to continue in the Randi forum, in spite of the situation over there. (I know that I’ll sound like some kind of nut, but I honestly believe what I’m about to say… Or at least, I honestly believe that I believe what I’m about to say.)
Click to expand...


Yes, but do you honestly believe that you believe that you believe what you're about to say?

Surely that's the real issue here.


Jabba said:
- My first general reason for wanting to continue is HOW IMPORTANT I perceive my two basic goals to be. I think that
1) A METHOD FOR ENSURING ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY,
2) AS WOULD A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE THAT THE SHROUD IS PROBABLY GENUINE…
- My second general reason is that I think that both are quite possible…
Click to expand...


I have a feeling that your goal of implementing a revolutionary method of ensuring effective debate is going to be compromised somewhat by posting vapid, long-winded gibberish like the above.
 
Jabba said:
- snip

- Also, they are somewhat correct about my inability to present satisfactory evidence myself – just that I have a lot of excuses and these guys don’t recognize (or admit?) the validity of my excuses…
Click to expand...

I think your excuses (bad memory, it's hard to keep up, etc.) are all valid excuses for why you are having difficulty in this thread. The excuses do not, however, provide any new or helpful information. The end result is indentical to someone who is ignoring points, misdirecting and misleading. I'm sorry you are struggling and I'm glad you are seeking help at that other forum.

Jabba said:
- snip

2. The aim of my method for debate is not to enlighten my opponents. My aim is to attract a large audience, and enlighten THEM.
Click to expand...

I'm all for that, but I don't see how your "method" would either attract or enlighten an audience any better than what is happening now in this forum.

Also, please include links to the other forum when you post about it here. Some might have an aversion to visiting that website, but others, like me, are interested in what is said and the attitude over there.

Thanks,
Ward
 
Jabba said:
... there is at least one guy over there that seems to be genuinely seeking the truth about the Shroud — and others that might be close. If I can give them some good answers to their reservations, they might actually begin to rethink. I think that would be a giant step in the right direction....
3. I think that if we can develop just a SLIGHTLY effective debate between us and those on the Randi forum, we have the beginnings of something important. ...
Click to expand...

That was an interesting contribution to the discussion.
Breakfast time!
 
Well, I have now read the entire 85 pages of this mess. Though i have learned a bit about Shroudies, I really didn't need to. I'm not at all surprised to see Jabba's latest masterpiece. He will be unable to stop what he has started - if he admitted his error(s) and acknowledged that the shroud is an interesting fraud, it would seriously undermine his belief in god/jesus/zombie-thingie. It ought to signal the end of any hope of something happening in this thread. Really, this thing is starting to smell funny....
 
Jabba said:
Also, they are somewhat correct about my inability to present satisfactory evidence myself – just that I have a lot of excuses and these guys don’t recognize (or admit?) the validity of my excuses…
Click to expand...
They AREN'T valid. Either you can present the data or you can't. Science is harsh--I could tell you stories that'd chill your blood about what I've done to get data (let's put it this way: being stalked by a mountain lion doesn't count as an exciting day in the field for me), but none of them would make a difference. Only the data do. It sucks, but I'm not holding you to any standards I don't hold myself or my colleagues to.

wardenclyffe said:
Some might have an aversion to visiting that website, but others, like me, are interested in what is said and the attitude over there.
Click to expand...
"Those people are closed-minded dicks because they don't believe what I do" just about sums it up, doesn't it? Jabba is apparently the reasonable one--which more or less tells me all I need to know about the prevailing attitude.
 
What an outrageous post by Jabba, even by his standards. The accusation that there is only one poster here who is interested in finding out the truth about the shroud is particularly offensive. The many posters here who have taken the time to do the research thoroughly and objectively evaluate the evidence, as Jabba has never done, are clearly interested in finding out the truth, and find it they have. The fact that the conclusion they have been led to is the opposite of what Jabba would like to believe is his problem, not theirs.
 
pakeha said:
I've often wondered why the pro-authenticity proponents didn't manage to convince the Vatican that the massive restoration in 2002 wasn't the perfect opportunity to obtain material under the most stringent conditions to perform a C14 dating.

It wouldn't be because the Vatican accepts the findings of those three labs, would it?
Click to expand...
Or because deep down the shroudies know that the results would be pretty much the same?

MRC_Hans said:
Well, I basically agree, but ... if I were to design the next C14 test, I would preempt all their reservations, i.e:

Randomized samples from different parts of the shroud (since the first test, we have aquired technology that can produce reliable results from much smaller samples), chemical analysis of part of each sample, fully blinded controls, careful photography of the sample areas, from both sides, in different kind of light, including x-ray, full video and independent withness survey of the whole process, etc.

Then, at least, they would have to dream up an entire new array of excuses. ;)

Or, we could just ignore them.....

Hans
Click to expand...
Nah, the shroudies would just claim it'd been a conspiracy, Bonnet-Eymard did just that after the 1988 tests.
 
Jabba said:
- So's you don't have to go to the Dan Porter blog, this is my latest post over there.
Click to expand...
Why are you wasting our time with this rubbish?

Jabba said:
1) A METHOD FOR ENSURING ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY,
Click to expand...
This exists, it's called science. You ignore it because it doesn't support your opinions.

Jabba said:
AS WOULD A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE THAT THE SHROUD IS PROBABLY GENUINE…
Click to expand...
No.

Jabba said:
My second general reason is that I think that both are quite possible…
Click to expand...
Then why continue wasting time, provide evidence.
Jabba said:
Now, even though most of the posts from my opponents over on the Randi forum are basically just insults,
Click to expand...
Another outright lie.

Jabba said:
some of the posts include “accusations” that seem at least somewhat reasonable.
Click to expand...
You means "facts" and "reason".

Jabba said:
I had wanted to unearth the reasonable accusations against Shroud authenticity, and see if we could effectively refute them — and these guys are happy to spell out just what the accusations are.
Click to expand...
Then you ignore them.

Jabba said:
- Also, they are somewhat correct about my inability to present satisfactory evidence myself – just that I have a lot of excuses and these guys don’t recognize (or admit?) the validity of my excuses…
Click to expand...
Your excuses are crap, go and do some research before posting the same nonsense over and over again.

Jabba said:
2. The aim of my method for debate is not to enlighten my opponents. My aim is to attract a large audience, and enlighten THEM.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you admit you have no intention of engaging in actual reasoned debate.

Jabba said:
3.1. I can’t fully impose my method on their current forum – so, even if I’m right about the overall method, I can’t expect to directly accomplish a whole lot over there, as things stand.
Click to expand...
Again nice to see some honesty, you admit that without controlling the debate you can't bamboozle people.

Jabba said:
3.2. But then, if I can show just a little bit of “progress” (defined below) over there, and keep working on it, I might eventually be able to convince the administrators over there to allow for an experimental thread using my suggested method.
Click to expand...
Thankfully the admins here won't fall for this stupidity.

Jabba said:
3.3. Maybe, I could convince Dan, or another one of our leaders to “sponsor” such a debate in front of a large audience on whatever website.
Click to expand...
Why is he so scared?

Jabba said:
3.4. Whatever, I sure think that someone with some influence needs to be researching the possibility of ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE DEBATE.
Click to expand...
Rather than re-posting the same debunked crap over and over again? It's be a nice change in methodology on your part.

Jabba said:
(“Progress” being the explicit isolation of BASIC disagreements — where the two sides don’t have anything further to add re the particular, specific, disagreement, and can thereby agree to disagree for now re that particular disagreement – thereby, allowing the audience to best judge that particular disagreement for themselves. Progress does not require “enlightenment” of one of the opponents.)
Click to expand...
The basic disagreement is that we accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake, as shown by the evidence, and you deny this reality.

Jabba, if you and your fellow cranks want to debate the origin of the shroud why not give them this list, tell them to do some research, and join us here.

The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radiocarbon), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:

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
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; 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
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.
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
What an outrageous post by Jabba, even by his standards. The accusation that there is only one poster here who is interested in finding out the truth about the shroud is particularly offensive. The many posters here who have taken the time to do the research thoroughly and objectively evaluate the evidence, as Jabba has never done, are clearly interested in finding out the truth, and find it they have. The fact that the conclusion they have been led to is the opposite of what Jabba would like to believe is his problem, not theirs.
Click to expand...
He's preaching to his fellow shroudies over there remember.
 
archspoiler said:
He will be unable to stop what he has started - if he admitted his error(s) and acknowledged that the shroud is an interesting fraud, it would seriously undermine his belief in god/jesus/zombie-thingie.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's no reason why it should; the Catholic church has no problem with it being a fraud, as far as I can tell, and nothing in Christianity depends on the shroud being genuine. The experience of realising something you believed was true, isn't, might cause some re-evaluation of other beliefs.
 
catsmate1 said:
The basic disagreement is that we accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake, as shown by the evidence, and you deny this reality.
Click to expand...
Just a minor quibble: The foundational disagreement between Jabba and the rest of us is methodological. We believe that the conclusion must follow the evidence, while Jabba has repeatedly admitted to believing that the proper way to examine archaeological questions is to first draw conclusions and then look for supporting evidence. The fact that our conclusions differ, and that we disagree on what data should be accepted or rejected, stems from that. To us, valid evidence is accurate and reproducible, and our conclusions stem from our interepretation of that evidence. To Jabba, valid evidence is whatever supports his a priori conclusions.
 
zooterkin said:
Actually, there's no reason why it should; the Catholic church has no problem with it being a fraud, as far as I can tell, and nothing in Christianity depends on the shroud being genuine. The experience of realising something you believed was true, isn't, might cause some re-evaluation of other beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Catholic Church is not speciously arguing against all the facts, Jabba is. This is Jaba's problem, not Christianity's. Jabba's religion seems contingent on the truthiness of the Shroud. If he ever comes to his senses and accepts what he has been told for 85 freakin' pages, I would bet he goes on to question all the other hogwash contained in the Big Book of Silliness....
 
archspoiler said:
Yes, but the Catholic Church is not speciously arguing against all the facts, Jabba is. This is Jaba's problem, not Christianity's. Jabba's religion seems contingent on the truthiness of the Shroud. If he ever comes to his senses and accepts what he has been told for 85 freakin' pages, I would bet he goes on to question all the other hogwash contained in the Big Book of Silliness....
Click to expand...


This reminds me of someone else that posts on this Forum. Just can't quite recall the name . . .
 
archspoiler said:
Well, I have now read the entire 85 pages of this mess. Though i have learned a bit about Shroudies, I really didn't need to. I'm not at all surprised to see Jabba's latest masterpiece. He will be unable to stop what he has started - if he admitted his error(s) and acknowledged that the shroud is an interesting fraud, it would seriously undermine his belief in god/jesus/zombie-thingie. It ought to signal the end of any hope of something happening in this thread. Really, this thing is starting to smell funny....
Click to expand...
Welcome!

Highlighted: That's the funny thing about it all because, why should it? It is absolutely certain that fake relics flourished in the middle ages: We could build a house from the splinters of the cross in existence. So this particular relic, despite its traditionally high profile, means absolutely nothing for a belief in Jesus. Heck, if the guy existed, he died 2,000 years ago; why would we expect his burial scroud to exist, any more than his shoes?

I don't believe in Jesus, but if I did, the shroud of Turin would mean absolutely zero to me.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, how about them?:confused:

Hans
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should have been clearer.

All I meant to say was that every sect of every religion seems to place a great deal of importance in its own particular magical objects, and the shroud of Turin just happens to be the object of adoration of the Shroudists, one of hundreds (thousands?) of denominations of Christianity.

I could probably conjecture that it's signally important to each of these denominations that they prove, "scientifically", that their magical objects are the holiest in order to demonstrate that they alone are the followers of the One True <insert religion>™.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom