Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Seems like Jabba has successfully derailed the conversation. That's got to be a victory for him, at least.

Also, how would a black hole and levitating corpse prevent the top of the head from being imaged?

Things distort around a black hole. And quantum. Plus Jesus.

Duh.

 

[Garrette]

Seems like Jabba has successfully derailed the conversation. That's got to be a victory for him, at least.

I don't really agree. There is no conversation to derail. Even in regard to the non-C14 topics, Jabba is still telling us what he's going to tell us without actually telling us and then asking us to find information for him.

If there is any victory for Jabba it is that the thread continues at all. I have stayed away for a long while (with the occasional peek in), but occasionally I find it fun to poke back in for a bit. Whether I do or not or whether anyone else does or not, Jabba will go on with his irrationality and deception.

Things distort around a black hole. And quantum. Plus Jesus.

Finally! Someone who understands science!

 

[pakeha]

...Is it not the case that all manner of fanciful and untrue claims have been made by people believing they have seen various fuzzy and indistinct "marks" on the shroud? Why are we still discussing this stuff as if the claims had any honest merit left in them at all?

Indeed, IanS, that was the burden of the OP.

...ETA: I remember also a web site showed a face or a mask imprinted onto a cloth using paints too and it was also wide on the side and top bottom, now if i could only remember the web site.

I've seen a computer simulation of that- if you like I'll hunt it out.

...That means detail of the side of the jaw should actually appear *enlarged* and on the picture rather than a flat paint like face.

utter fake shroud. Can only be a painting.

Oh and you all owe me a laugh, my GF asked my what i was doing on the floor with pocket cloth onto my face.

Kudos on your dedication to the truth!

Right.
So Jabba has gone larking after blood exudates and is completely ignoring the fact he's done this all before, using the same old same old sources.
Is it really possible Jabba has forgotten how the discussion went at the Atheists' Forum?

ETA
Found!
The simulation of those distortions so ably confirmed by Aepervius's experiment
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7863247&postcount=33

 

[Aepervius]

ETA
Found!
The simulation of those distortions so ably confirmed by Aepervius's experiment
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7863247&postcount=33

Ha, character texture mapping. Indeed it was indeed that. And now that I think about it, you can probably find a lot more example on 3DS directories . The fact is that if the cloth is allowed to fall down naturally it will cover a bit of the jaw and the top and bottom of the head. You should not see a *painting* of the persons as if a photograph was taken, you should see something which is deformed all over the place. Like a mercator or similar projection. shape/angle/distance/proportion choose 1 or 2 you want to keep the other will be deformed. You cannot have a mathematical projection onto a lower degree surface and conserve everything.

I seriously doubt we will see Jabba picking that up. He will still be playing law and order or something.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

...Somebody might have linked to this before, but this is a rather nice tool for examining areas of the shroud in detail:

http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml

One could use this tool to zoom in on the patch area and examine the continuity of the density banding that passes through the C14 sample area, if one was interested.

This site is a skeptical view of the "scourge marks":
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehy...-scourge-marks-surely-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

The author makes a few interesting points that provides daunting evidence against the notion that the "scourge marks" are scourge marks:
1. The claim in that the scourge marks were produced by Roman flagrum which was a whip that had little balls attached to the end of the whip cords. The portion of the whip cord between the little balls is allegedly visible in the shroud image but what is missing is any sign of the whip cord itself that is closer to the handle part of the whip than where the balls are. Somehow the person allegedly doing the whipping causes the end of the whip (including the balls and the whip cord between them) to touch the body of the victim without ever leaving an impression of the whip cord that lies nearer the handle than where the balls are attached.

2. His most devastating argument that the "scourge marks" are not scourge marks is his observation that the "scourge marks" lie on the body and and across the edge of the arms. This would only be possible if the victim held his arms the way they are shown in the shroud image while he was being whipped. Even then because the arms are not in the same plane as the chest the possibility of making "scourge marks" like those in the shroud is essentially zero.

I wondered about a few other things about these "scourge marks". Is the theory that Jesus was whipped first and then crucified? Why doesn't the stake block some of the scourge marks on the back?

Where was the guy standing that was doing all this whipping? There are horizontal "scourge marks" on the lower part of the legs and the upper torso. Was he climbing a ladder to make the upper horizontal "scourge marks" or was his victim being raised and lowered so he could thoroughly cover the body with horizontal "scourge marks"?...

Dave,

- Just to let you know that I'm trying to study this stuff, and the other stuff you link in 3913, but it isn't easy...
- I must admit that you and Colin Berry have some interesting questions that I cannot yet answer. Mostly, with the three different kinds of supposed scourge marks, and more than 300 of them, the whole thing gets pretty messy, and confusing.

- I don’t know of anything that describes HOW Jesus was allegedly flogged, but it wasn’t while he was on the cross on top of Calgary. A possible explanation was that his hands were tied to the (or a) cross bar that was SUSPENDED AT ITS ENDS, at a location relatively near to Pilate's mansion. Surely, the Romans would have had a ready-made device for flogging purposes, and they probably wouldn’t want the device to hinder their flogging -- and, according to scripture, said device would not be on top of Calgary (most perps flogged were not then crucified).

- The claim by our side is that there were at least two floggers – not just one.

- F/F’s suggestion about the marks on the lower extremities was that Jesus was flogged from behind while he was carrying the crossbar up the hill (I say crossBAR because it has been claimed elsewhere (and, seems to make more sense) that Jesus did not drag the whole cross up the hill – the vertical part was already there, and “stationed.”)

- I’ll be back.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Hi, Jabba.
Could explain what your last post here has to do with the C14 dating of the shroud?

 

[carlitos]

I've seen perps flogged in Calgary, and it's nothing like what Jabba describes. Essentially, you throw loonies and toonies at the poor girl while she writhes about on stage.

 

[pakeha]

 

[Dinwar]

Dave,

- Just to let you know that I'm trying to study this stuff, and the other stuff you link in 3913, but it isn't easy...
- I must admit that you and Colin Berry have some interesting questions that I cannot yet answer. Mostly, with the three different kinds of supposed scourge marks, and more than 300 of them, the whole thing gets pretty messy, and confusing.

- I don’t know of anything that describes HOW Jesus was allegedly flogged, but it wasn’t while he was on the cross on top of Calgary. A possible explanation was that his hands were tied to the (or a) cross bar that was SUSPENDED AT ITS ENDS, at a location relatively near to Pilate's mansion. Surely, the Romans would have had a ready-made device for flogging purposes, and they probably wouldn’t want the device to hinder their flogging -- and, according to scripture, said device would not be on top of Calgary (most perps flogged were not then crucified).

- The claim by our side is that there were at least two floggers – not just one.

- F/F’s suggestion about the marks on the lower extremities was that Jesus was flogged from behind while he was carrying the crossbar up the hill (I say crossBAR because it has been claimed elsewhere (and, seems to make more sense) that Jesus did not drag the whole cross up the hill – the vertical part was already there, and “stationed.”)

- I’ll be back.
--- Jabba

It's hillarious that you continue to cite the Bible as a refrence, despite the Bible clearly stating that the shroud of Jesus would be multiple parts, not a single cloth like the shroud of Turin.

As for flogging, it's an ancient practice that's been perfected over the years. The arms are generally kept tied over the head or to the sides, so any whip marks on the arms would be at different angles from the whip marks on the body. Go to any S&M club and you can see this done more or less any night of the week, and you can prove this to yourself quite easily. Simply put, whipped people don't look like the painting on the shroud.

None of this even attempts to address the C14 issue.

None of this even attempts to address the projection issue.

All of this is yet another attempt to evade the fact that you cannot answer even simple questions.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

Hi, Jabba.
Could explain what your last post here has to do with the C14 dating of the shroud?

Pakeha,

- Nice flowers.

- My claim is that the apparent scourge marks could not have been painted on or poured on 600 years ago -- there had to be a human being, with numerous wounds involved, producing imprints on the Shroud.
- If I can establish that conclusion as pretty much unavoidable, I'll then try to show how improbable it is that a 14th century artist would, or could, involve a heretofore living human body to produce such an imprint (fully accepting that this was both a "relic centered," and barbaric, time).
- Given those conclusions, the Shroud could not have been forged in the 14th century (or earlier) -- and, there must be something wrong with the C14 dating! That's the argument.

--- Jabba

 

[carlitos]

For, I don't know, the 1000th time in this thread, Jabba's conclusion does not follow from his premises (which he doesn't bother to prove either). Shocka.

 

[Dinwar]

- My claim is that the apparent scourge marks could not have been painted on or poured on 600 years ago -- there had to be a human being, with numerous wounds involved, producing imprints on the Shroud.

So your argument is, essentially, that no one in Europe or the Middle East was flogged around 600 years ago (I'm ignoring for the moment that you've yet to provide any real evidence that it's actually blood on the image). NO ONE. Despite innumerable legal texts calling for whipping, religious texts describing how to properly whip one's self, and all the rest, you're arguing that NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON TWO CONTINENTS was whipped around 600 years ago.

- Given those conclusions, the Shroud could not have been forged in the 14th century (or earlier) -- and, there must be something wrong with the C14 dating! That's the argument.

Given that your premise--that a whipped body was completely unavailable, either for study or for use in this activitiy--is so rediculous that it qutie literally can only be supported by an active refusal to know the first thing about life at that time, I think the C14 dating is safe. This is nothing more than you trying to ignore the fact that you can't actually address the C14 dating, and therefore are trying to do the "reasonable doubt" thing you're so obsessed with.

You're ignorant of both radiometric dating and Medieval culture, yet demand that you be taken more seriously than experts in both. Rediculous and profoundly arrogant.

 

[catsmate]

Pakeha,

- Nice flowers.

- My claim is that the apparent scourge marks could not have been painted on or poured on 600 years ago -- there had to be a human being, with numerous wounds involved, producing imprints on the Shroud.
- If I can establish that conclusion as pretty much unavoidable, I'll then try to show how improbable it is that a 14th century artist would, or could, involve a heretofore living human body to produce such an imprint (fully accepting that this was both a "relic centered," and barbaric, time).
- Given those conclusions, the Shroud could not have been forged in the 14th century (or earlier) -- and, there must be something wrong with the C14 dating! That's the argument.

--- Jabba

None of which has anything at all to do with the radiocarbon dating.
You are still attempting to divert attention from your failure to actually address the radiocarbon dating with this rubbish.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,

- Nice flowers.

- My claim is that the apparent scourge marks could not have been painted on or poured on 600 years ago -- there had to be a human being, with numerous wounds involved, producing imprints on the Shroud.
- If I can establish that conclusion as pretty much unavoidable, I'll then try to show how improbable it is that a 14th century artist would, or could, involve a heretofore living human body to produce such an imprint (fully accepting that this was both a "relic centered," and barbaric, time).
- Given those conclusions, the Shroud could not have been forged in the 14th century (or earlier) -- and, there must be something wrong with the C14 dating! That's the argument.

--- Jabba

Thanks for the prompt reply.
So your argument is that because you feel it is improbable the marks you think represent scourging were formed in the 14th century, therefore the dating results of three independent labs must be wrong?

OK.
I'll be looking forward to seeing your linked sources on the subject.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

It's hillarious that you continue to cite the Bible as a refrence, despite the Bible clearly stating that the shroud of Jesus would be multiple parts, not a single cloth like the shroud of Turin....

Dinwar,

- If I can find the time, I'll try to address your other reservations from the above post.
- For now, the Bible isn't all that clear about what Jesus had been wrapped in -- but superficially, the ambiguity seems best explained by differences in translation. Whatever, there is plenty of room to accept that he was wrapped in something just like the Shroud of Turin.


And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud (Matthew 27:59 ESV)

And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. (Mark 15:46 ESV)

Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid. (Luke 23:53 ESV)
But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened. (Luke 24:12 ESV)

So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. (John 19:40 ESV)
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, (John 20:6 ESV)


--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Bound, wrapped?
Did you see the posts above explaining why the image on the shroud has nothing to do with a wrapped figure?

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar,

- If I can find the time, I'll try to address your other reservations from the above post.
- For now, the Bible isn't all that clear about what Jesus had been wrapped in -- but superficially, the ambiguity seems best explained by differences in translation. Whatever, there is plenty of room to accept that he was wrapped in something just like the Shroud of Turin.

No, there isn't. It wasn't that long ago that I attended Easter services, and the readings quite clearly and unambiguously state that the head-cloth was lying separately from the rest of the shroud when they found the tomb empty. At minimum, that means that the head was wrapped with a separate cloth. Where is that separate cloth, Jabba? Or is the Bible wrong--and therefore a useless reference? It's one or the other for your side--either the shroud is right and the Bible wrong, or the Bible is right and the shroud a fake. (My side holds that both are fakes, so it's a moot point.)

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

Bound, wrapped?
Did you see the posts above explaining why the image on the shroud has nothing to do with a wrapped figure?

Pakeha,

- No. You'll have to point those out. You and I tend to "see" things differently.
- I think that "wrapped" doesn't mean that the shroud itself encircled the body in a horizontal fashion. Though, there probably were a couple of "belts" that encircled the Shroud in a horizontal fashion (this could also explain the mention, in the Bible, of linen CLOTHS (plural).

- Looking up the "Shroud of Grushetskaya," it sure doesn't look like it was made to encircle her body horizontally.
- At http://burialpapoose.com/natural-green-burial-shrouds-organic-tachrichim.html, you can find a picture of Grushetskaya’s shroud, and note that on that same professional webpage showing other shrouds, and other types of shrouds, they show the Shroud of Turin. They seem to accept that the TS is a legitimate kind of shroud – that wasn’t used horizontally.

- That’s all the time I have for now.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Smoking Guns?

No, there isn't. It wasn't that long ago that I attended Easter services, and the readings quite clearly and unambiguously state that the head-cloth was lying separately from the rest of the shroud when they found the tomb empty. At minimum, that means that the head was wrapped with a separate cloth. Where is that separate cloth, Jabba? Or is the Bible wrong--and therefore a useless reference? It's one or the other for your side--either the shroud is right and the Bible wrong, or the Bible is right and the shroud a fake. (My side holds that both are fakes, so it's a moot point.)

Dinwar,
- Thanks for asking that question. Look up the "Sudarium of Oviedo."
--- Jabba

 

[wardenclyffe]

Even in Jabba's translation of the biblical sources, the word cloths is used. Not cloth, but cloths. Other translations specify that there was a separate head cloth. If we want to turn this into a debate about where the bible contradicts itself (which is always a fun debate), that should be a new thread.

Ward