Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[zooterkin]

Your answer has found favor, but the path of heresy is wide, and the Way of Truth is strait...

What. Kind. of. Cheese?

Get thee behind me, Satan, with your trick questions! Of course there is no cheese in a ham sandwich.

If we're talking about a ham and cheese sandwich (a completely separate entity), then mature Cheddar is required.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

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.

David,

- I suspect that this article by Frederick Zugibe (http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm) explains the stains in the hair. It even describes at least some agreement from Baden. "In the December 1980 issue of Medical World News, Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist and the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City agreed that if the Shroud is genuine, the body must have been washed. He also added that if the body was washed there might be some oozing from the wounds ( 7 )."
- I have Zugibe's 2005 book, The Crucifixion of Jesus, which repeats that article, and I'll see if I can contact him and ask about the stains on the hair. If Baden is still alive, I'll try the same with him.
- I suspect that you're better at finding addresses and phone numbers...

--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Get thee behind me, Satan, with your trick questions! Of course there is no cheese in a ham sandwich.

If we're talking about a ham and cheese sandwich (a completely separate entity), then mature Cheddar is required.

Wise in Sandwich, this one is...

Here is ham. What doth hinder you from enjoying your reward?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Joy is in the ears that hear, wise ATV.

Have a cookie.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954ff5de716b646.png[/qimg]





There is only Hot English. Everything else calling itself mustard is lying its lid off.

Thank you for the cookie, O Pharaoh!
(Nom, nom, nom...)

 

[Slowvehicle]

David,

- I suspect that this article by Frederick Zugibe (http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm) explains the stains in the hair. It even describes at least some agreement from Baden. "In the December 1980 issue of Medical World News, Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist and the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City agreed that if the Shroud is genuine, the body must have been washed. He also added that if the body was washed there might be some oozing from the wounds ( 7 )."
- I have Zugibe's 2005 book, The Crucifixion of Jesus, which repeats that article, and I'll see if I can contact him and ask about the stains on the hair. If Baden is still alive, I'll try the same with him.
- I suspect that you're better at finding addresses and phone numbers...

--- Jabba

Rich:
¡Bienvenido a los ceros!

The article you provided does not mention the anatomically impossible, anti-gravity, falsely detailed "rivulets" of "blood" in the hair part of the image.
Please let me say that again...the article you provided does not mention the "stains in the hair".
The quote you provide, that there "might have been some oozing", is a bit of convolute special pleading in response to the argument that there is too much blood on the cloth in question, because any alleged body would have been washed before being wrapped. "some oozing" is not going to produce the rivulets represented in the image...

 

[Giordano]

David,

- I suspect that this article by Frederick Zugibe (http://www.shroud.com/zugibe2.htm) explains the stains in the hair. It even describes at least some agreement from Baden. "In the December 1980 issue of Medical World News, Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist and the former Chief Medical Examiner of New York City agreed that if the Shroud is genuine, the body must have been washed. He also added that if the body was washed there might be some oozing from the wounds ( 7 )."
- I have Zugibe's 2005 book, The Crucifixion of Jesus, which repeats that article, and I'll see if I can contact him and ask about the stains on the hair. If Baden is still alive, I'll try the same with him.
- I suspect that you're better at finding addresses and phone numbers...

--- Jabba

Don't you just hate it when you fly with a cold, and when you return and get off the plane you just can't hear anything?

Here, let me say it louder: Jabba, at best you can try to claim that it is real blood from someone crucified in the 14th century. You will need to disprove the 14C evidence at that point. Why not do it now? Unless, of course, you know you can't.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

Why not just tell us what the entire syllogism is first? I for one would really like to know how you intend to go from "there's real blood" to "therefor the C14 dating is wrong", considering that real blood existed in the Middle Ages.

Akri,

- Welcome aboard.

- Try this.
1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.
7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.
8. They do not all agree with tradition.
9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.
10. He would also have to be rich.
11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.
12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.
- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

--- Jabba

 

[Belz...]

1. The stains are real blood.

Unproven.

2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.

Speculation.

3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.

Speculation.

4. This human was crucified.

Non sequitur.

5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.

Hyperbole.

6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.

Lie.

7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.

Unclear word salad.

8. They do not all agree with tradition.

Not entirely, true.

9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.

Irrelevant.

10. He would also have to be rich.

Unsupported.

11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.

Non sequitur.

12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.

Irrelevant.

- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

Fail.

 

[Akri]

- Welcome aboard.

Thanks.

1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.
7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.
8. They do not all agree with tradition.
9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.
10. He would also have to be rich.
11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.
12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.
- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

--- Jabba

Unfortunately none of that contradicts the C14 dating. The best you can do with this is to show that a really improbable event happened in the 14th century. Pursuing this line of evidence does not help your case at all.

Aw, come on. You know full well that Jabba has no intention of providing such a syllogism, right ? "I'll do it soon" is not a very convincing promise.

You were saying?

 

[Jabba]

Rich:
¡Bienvenido a los ceros!

The article you provided does not mention the anatomically impossible, anti-gravity, falsely detailed "rivulets" of "blood" in the hair part of the image.
Please let me say that again...the article you provided does not mention the "stains in the hair"...

Slowvehicle,
- I knew that.
- But it does seem to explain the other "rivulets."
- And maybe, the same applies to what we see in the hair.
- Zugibe has spent all sorts of time studying the Shroud, and apparently doesn't find a problem with what we see in the hair.
--- Rich

 

[Mashuna]

Akri,

- Welcome aboard.

- Try this.
1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.
7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.
8. They do not all agree with tradition.
9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.
10. He would also have to be rich.
11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.
12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.
- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

--- Jabba

That's great! I was expecting some subtle logical failure that lead you astray in your reasoning, but instead you've swerved straight off the logic path into a tree, then proceeded to get out of your shroud mobile and push it off a cliff. Into a volcano.

 

[pgwenthold]

Akri,

- Welcome aboard.

- Try this.
1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.

As has been pointed out many times, this is completely baseless.

We have evidence that the shroud we have now looks very, very different from what it looked like back in 1400. Therefore, it is inherently impossible for a 21st century artist to produce it, because it requires at least 600 years to get it to look like what we have today.

OTOH, since we don't actually have any pictures of what it looked like back then (only descriptions), we don't know at all that the artifact could not be reproduced if we let someone do it and gave it 600 years.

So either we have to wait 600 years to see if what someone makes now turns out like the shroud, or we would have to know what the shroud looked like 600 years ago. We cannot know either.

Therefore, the claim that 21st century scientists cannot produce something like the shroud is completely baseless.

 

[Resume]

Akri,

- Welcome aboard.

- Try this.
1. The stains are real blood.

Evidence?

2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.

Why not?

3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.

Why?

4. This human was crucified.

Evidence?

5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.

Skilled, nothing more.

6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.

Source?

7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.

Source?

8. They do not all agree with tradition.

This helps your argument how?

9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.

Not necessarily, and so what?

10. He would also have to be rich.

See above.

11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.[QUOTE/]
See above again.

12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.

Immaterial.

- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

Non sequitur . . . and lunch.

 

[tsig]

Aw, come on. You know full well that Jabba has no intention of providing such a syllogism, right ? "I'll do it soon" is not a very convincing promise.

It's a little better than "read my posts'.

 

[tsig]

Your answer has found favor, but the path of heresy is wide, and the Way of Truth is strait...

What. Kind. of. Cheese?

No one expects the Hamish Inquisition.

 

[Jabba]

The Blood

Thanks.

Unfortunately none of that contradicts the C14 dating. The best you can do with this is to show that a really improbable event happened in the 14th century. Pursuing this line of evidence does not help your case at all...

Akri,

- Sure it does.

- Are we 100% sure that the carbon dating was correct? I'm certainly not.
- I would say that all we can do here is compare the probabilities. And, if my premises are correct -- and we don't yet consider the carbon dating results -- the probability of the Shroud being of 14th century origin is extremely small. Then,
- Is the invalidity of the carbon dating results -- without yet considering my premisses -- less improbable than the Shroud being of 14th century, without considering the carbon dating results?
- I don't think so.
- (Sorry about all the negatives...)

- And that is just the beginning of what I consider to be evidence against the validity of the carbon dating.

--- Jabba

 

[Mashuna]

<snip>if my premises are correct <snip>

They aren't.

- Is the invalidity of the carbon dating results -- without yet considering my premisses -- less improbable than the Shroud being of 14th century, without considering the carbon dating results?
- I don't think so.

You're wrong

Boom! Logic volcano eruption!

 

[Jabba]

Evidence?

Why not?

Why?

Evidence?

Skilled, nothing more.

Source?

Source?

This helps your argument how?

Not necessarily, and so what?

See above.

See above again.

Immaterial.

Non sequitur . . . and lunch.

Resume,

- I'm not sure of the right terms of logic to use, but the premises I gave are just separate conclusions that I have reached. And my objective now is to support each one -- one at a time.
- Akri asked for the whole syllogism, so I sort of gave him (or her) the "Table of Contents" for my hopefully forthcoming "book." Now, I'll try to write the first chapter.

--- Jabba

 

[godless dave]

Akri,

- Welcome aboard.

- Try this.
1. The stains are real blood.
2. They could not have been PAINTED on the Shroud.
3. They had to be “imprinted” on from a real, dead human.
4. This human was crucified.
5. A 14th century artisan able to produce this image would have to be an absolute genius.
6. He would be able to produce an artifact that even 21st century scientists cannot.
7. The wounds fit perfectly with those of the Biblical Jesus and modern medicine.
8. They do not all agree with tradition.
9. This artisan genius would also have to be sociopathic.
10. He would also have to be rich.
11. He should also be famous, and have produced other images of the same genre.
12. He probably wasn’t Leonardo.
- Therefore: it is EXTREMELY improbable that the Shroud is a fake from the 14th century.

--- Jabba

Assumptions 2-5 and 9-11 are completely unreasonable.

Assumptions 7 and 8 contradict each other.

 

[Aepervius]

- I'll be taking up where I left off.
- I'll be trying to show that the "stains" were real blood.
- I focus first on blood because I see its actuality as the first premise in an extended syllogism concluding that the carbon dating has to be flawed. I see this indirect syllogism as more persuasive than the direct evidence.
- I can hear the applause from here!
--- Jabba

I am looking at that post date and it says 2013. Can't be correct i remember many month ago the same post and the same people pointing it will lead to nowhere showing there was blood (there is no evidence of it but even if it was you can't prove the source of the blood or the age).

Weid it msut be a deja vu.