• 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.
I could go through that statement you copied and pasted point by point, Jabba, but it'd be a waste of time. the fact is there's no data in it--it's one long ad hom argument.

If that's the best your side can put forward--a rant that makes me think the guy was froathing at the mouth when he wrote it--you've already lost. And I never want to hear you or any other shroudy complain about how we talk to you guys again. That quote is more vile and hate-filled than anything anyone's posted on this forum, and would probably get someone carded if not banned should they post it here. Our side offeres arguments, proofs, demonstrations, and is willinig to explore evidence that helps your side (we've done it several times now--I'm not joking when I say that I've provided more evidence for the shroud's authenticity than you have). Your side offers personal attacks and ravings. It's quite telling.

By the way, the professional way to handle that woudl be to simply state "You're wrong. Here's a list of papers proving it" and then provide a bibliography for that extensive medical literature. It's equally emotionally satisfying, and has the additional benefit of actually convincing people you're right. Such a bibliography is sorely lacking in that rant.
 
I just read Jabba's post of Meachem's reponse to Mueller's criticism. I'll grant one thing: it doesn't take a medical examiner to realize that the image on the shroud is completely inconsistent with what one would get by wrapping a cloth around a dead person, so shroud critics using Mueller as a source for that obvious problem is somewhat iconoclastic, and certainly unnecessary. The problem with the image obviously fails on its own. In fact, I've mentioned it here many times (having challenged Jabba to provide a single example of any such image that has been produced by wrapping a cloth on a dead body (or even a live one with fake blood in the right places)), and I've never heard of Mueller.

That image has nothing to do with a dead body wrapped in a sheet. ****, even a lot of shroudies know that, which is why they have to invoke things like "quantum projection" and other such miraculous effects.
 
Jabba said:
David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast medical literature or to have been in contact with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's, which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena. In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage, Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither medieval nor artistic in origin.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Jabba, did you notice that none of this "response" actually addresses the specific scientific criticisms of the Shroud? It is only a (failed) attempt to attack the critics, not an attempt to answer their criticisms. A scientific response would be to show the data that disproves the criticisms.
 
Jabba said:
David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast medical literature or to have been in contact with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's, which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena. In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage, Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither medieval nor artistic in origin.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

I know Meacham’s response but it is not a response. In Spanish we say “Irse por los ceros de Úbeda” (To go to the Úbeda hills = “beat around the bush”, in English) when someone who doesn’t know how reply to a specific subject speaks about other insubstantial matters. It is irrelevant if Baden has seen only photos to see the blood “rivulets” on the air. The Bucklin (sindonist) opinion about Baden’s iconoclasm doesn’t make possible blood running on the hair. It is irrelevant if Baden has written a paper or only was interviewed. Metaphors about castles and sieges are irrelevant. The only valid reply is to show how blood rivulets can run on the hair. And no sindonist nor no sindonist has been been able to do this. Because it is impossible.

Only sindonist are interested in the Shroud. The scientific world is not interested in the Shroud. Scientists don’t usually work on the Shroud except a handful of them. There is nothing about the Shroud in ordinary academic events in Archaelogy or History. It is not a current subject neither in congresses nor reviews. Scholars devote to the historic Jesus problem don’t speak about the Shroud. I know only a brief comment of John D. Crossant. For him the Shroud is a fake. So, to say that only sindonologic studies are sindonists is a tautology. Meacham is right: sindonism is a castle. A castle without windows neither doors. Sindonists live in this claustrophobic world and think this is the entire World. It is their problem.
 
David Mo said:
I know Meacham’s response but it is not a response. In Spanish we say “Irse por los ceros de Úbeda” (To go to the Úbeda hills = “beat around the bush”, in English) when someone who doesn’t know how reply to a specific subject speaks about other insubstantial matters....
Click to expand...

Or quotes someone who talks about other insubstantial matters
 
Jabba said:
David,

- The following is Meacham's response to Mueller's objection.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast medical literature or to have been in contact with other scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50); his opinions were given on the basis of magazine photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's, which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena. In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage, Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither medieval nor artistic in origin.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Gosh.
Was that little tirade written before or after the Kouznetsov hoax?

Could you post up the link to the entire article this rant was taken from, please?
 
^
:rolleyes:

David Mo said:
William Meacham: "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology". http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm .

Go to the final "Reply".
Click to expand...

Trust Jabba to use such a source and trust posters here to source it , rather than himself.

So.
That rant is pre-Kouznetsov.
What a shame there's no testimony to the fun Kouznetov must have had setting up his marks.
 
Yes, the 'rivulets' argument is usually a showstopper here.
catsmate1 and others bring up that uncomfortable fact occasionally and voila! the principal pro-authenticity proponent du jour takes French leaveWP.
 
David Mo said:
William Meacham: "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology". http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm .

...
Click to expand...
That was an interesting site and one which I hadn't seen before. I wonder if Meacham has changed any of his views since that was written.

Does he still think Frei's pollen theories are viable for instance?

I enjoyed the comments from Richard J. Dent:

...I have no trouble in recognizing a man on a crusade, and the reader and, no doubt, other commentators are capable of interpreting and ultimately judging the so-called evidence, or lack thereof, for themselves. It is my belief, however, that this paper does represent an important epistemological issue in anthropological archeology - although I doubt it is the one intended by the author. Simply put, the arguments for the Shroud's authenticity illustrate that this relic is an authentic artifact not of the event in question, but of ourselves and our society.

...
Click to expand...
In the end that is what the shroud is. An artifact of people's willingness to suspend reason in the face of compelling biases. Meacham, seems incapable of even imagining that this process is controlling his shroud views.
 
davefoc said:
...I wonder if Meacham has changed any of his views since that was written.

Does he still think Frei's pollen theories are viable for instance? ...
Click to expand...

Would it amuse you to write and ask him?
Let's see, where's his e-mail addy or contact addy...
 
pakeha said:
Would it amuse you to write and ask him?
Let's see, where's his e-mail addy or contact addy...
Click to expand...

I have thought about this for a bit, even before you asked the question. It might amuse me and it would interest me and if he did make a response to a question like that I would definitely read it. But I don't think I'm going to be the one to contact him. For one thing I'm a bit burned out on this issue and then there is the thing that it seems like any communication from me would not be of utility to him.

It seems likely that he must have considered the shaky nature of the pollen evidence by now and perhaps he has written something on it. I notice that he was at least moderately skeptical of the coins in the eyes nonsense. I would be surprised if the strong evidence that Frei fraudulently created the pollen evidence isn't known to him by now and that he hasn't accepted that evidence.

But I don't know. It surprised me that any professional archeologist wouldn't be somewhat acquainted with the limits on an historical Jesus character and the fact that a plausible HJ is very unlikely to have been famous enough in his own time to have had genuine artifacts saved and passed down from it into modern times especially after the two Roman wars against Jerusalem which make the saving of such artifacts unlikely in the extreme if they ever existed.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
"I'm going to take a month off from proving my woo theories here to go prove a conspiracy theory somewhere else."

I like it.
Click to expand...
Meh, if you miss him you could just re-read his posts. It'll be just like what he'll post when he returns.
 
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