Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[kerikiwi]

Pssst! Don't let LibraryLady hear you say that!!

She won't hear me.
This is on the internet and she is in the library

 

[Akhenaten]

- I tell you what:

1. At this point -- after actually thinking for this last year about your claims (you probably don’t believe that I actually did that) – I had become somewhat worried that my strong belief that the Shroud is authentic has been based upon a lot of separate books and articles, quoting (or MISQUOTING) the SAME, perhaps MINIMAL AND MISUNDERSTOOD (perhaps, even AMATEURISH) research…

1. You were right to worry.
a. Your BELIEFS:
i. About your beliefs,
ii. are about the only thing you've got right.
2. So far.
5. Deal the ERRORS you believe to exist with the C14 dating.
ß. Everything else you do is just COMICAL arm flapping.
∆. Although, to tell the truth:
e. It's almost become too TRAGIC to get a decent laugh out of it.

 

[pakeha]

Jabba, I'll propose you stick to the dating.

Judging from the objections you posted up

...
12. I’ve already tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating process. In case you missed it, the following was taken from post #896.

2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (madame flury-lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, john l. Brown of the georgia institute of technology confirmed rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the los alamos national laboratories also confirmed rogers’ findings.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.


13. Until I hear otherwise, I’ll be looking up, and citing, all my previous posts concerning that “direct evidence,” and then seeing what else I can find.

--- Jabba

I come to the conclusion you believe there is a conspiracy to falsify the TS authenticity.
Could you explain why you think this conspiracy exists?
I do hope it's not orchestrated by the Holy Blood Basilica to eliminate competition for the relics' trade.

 

[catsmate]

- I tell you what:
<snippage>

Why do you insist on enumerating this nonsense?

<more snippage>

Jabba, it is obvious to us that you flit from theme to theme to avoid dealing with the rebuttal of your pro-shroud nonsense.

12. I’ve already tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating process. In case you missed it, the following was taken from post #896.

You either do not understand what "direct evidence" actually means or are evading. Again.

2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
2.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
2.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
2.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
2.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire shroud).
2.1.4. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
2.1.5. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (madame flury-lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
2.1.6. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures.
2.1.7. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
2.1.8. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”

3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, john l. Brown of the georgia institute of technology confirmed rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the los alamos national laboratories also confirmed rogers’ findings.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.

All of this worthless rubbish has bean dealt with, at length.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the protocols of testing the Shroud samples were the most rigorous in the entire history of carbon dating.

 

[Tolls]

Resurrection energy?

Jesus was clearly a Time Lord.
I wonder who's playing him now?

 

[pakeha]

^

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the protocols of testing the Shroud samples were the most rigorous in the entire history of carbon dating.

Not only that, but at least the Oxford lab has been used for dating other religious relics with no questioning of their credibility.
Does Jabba really think there was a conspiracy afoot?

 

[Susheel]

Why do i have this strange feeling that Jabba has actually realised how flimsy his "evidence" was. He may have come here thinking that he had sufficient material to rationally prove that the shroud was the actual cloth used to cover the body of Jesus. The counters made him realise how mistaken he was, however he still believes. He has however already dug the whole deep enough to crawl out of and if I remember correctly all his friends in his shroudie forum were invited to watch as he wiped the floor with our rationality, skepticism and "non"belief.
It has become obvious to him that he has failed and now he is just waffling to find himself a good out. One strategy could be to get himself banned so that he can go back to his roost of friends and state how the mean guys at the JREF suppressed his freedoms because they didn't want to hear the truth.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Susheel has it spot on

 

[Slowvehicle]

^




Not only that, but at least the Oxford lab has been used for dating other religious relics with no questioning of their credibility.
Does Jabba really think there was a conspiracy afoot?

IIRC the UA lab also dated at least one other "religious" artifact, but I the source eludes me at the moment.

 

[slyjoe]

IIRC the UA lab also dated at least one other "religious" artifact, but I the source eludes me at the moment.

I think it was the Dead Sea Scrolls, or part of them.

 

[Jabba]

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented. And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.
- But, here IS a place where we might be able to isolate a BASIC disagreement, and agree to disagree regarding it – which I claim would be a significant step in the right direction. (One of my goals in the current discussion is to better explain that claim.)
- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating. Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented. And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.
- But, here IS a place where we might be able to isolate a BASIC disagreement, and agree to disagree regarding it – which I claim would be a significant step in the right direction. (One of my goals in the current discussion is to better explain that claim.)
- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating. Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?
--- Jabba

Rich:

The cloth is a medieval artifact. The ¹⁴C dating so demonstrates. Unless and until you can show why three different labs, using the protocols directed by, changed by, and limited by the Vatican itself, came up with the same "error", you cannot get past the fact that the cloth is a medieval artifact.
Notwithstanding the fact that the image is a stylized, non-anatomical figure in an anatomically impossible position; notwithstanding the impossible direction of the anti-gravity "blood" flowing through the anti-gravity "hair"; notwithstanding the "wrapped" issue--the cloth is a medieval artifact.
Innuendo, character assassination, dark mutterings about vast conspiracies--none of these change the fact that the cloth is a medieval artifact.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented.

That's because it's utter drivel.

And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.

Of course you do. That's what bleevers do.

So?

- But, here IS a place where we might be able to isolate a BASIC disagreement, and agree to disagree regarding it – which I claim would be a significant step in the right direction. (One of my goals in the current discussion is to better explain that claim.)

You seem to think that agreeing to disagree is somehow equivalent to arriving logically at a conclusion that your belief-based, pro-authenticity arguments and the evidence-based, non-authenticity arguments are somehow equivalent.

You need to spend a few years re-contemplating the utter idiocy of this train of thought because it appears to be responsible not just for the wrong-headed nonsense that you've put forth in this thread but which in fact seems to underlie all of your arguments everywhere.

- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating.

Yup.

Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?

Thousands of people.

And they're all just as wrong as you are.


Welcome to the Internet.

 

[Mashuna]

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented. And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.

Fair enough, you say you've presented direct evidence against carbon dating. Let's take a look at the first example you provided (post 4457):

Acleron,

- My main reason for thinking that the carbon dating is flawed is what I'm calling the "indirect" evidence -- evidence against the results of the dating rather than the process of the dating.
- I do think that there is plenty of "direct" reason for questioning the validity of the overall process in this case, but for now, these seem to be sort of secondary, and basically allow for invalidity more than they require invalidity.
- So anyway, I think that I have a bunch of premises which, if true, lead to the conclusion that the carbon dating was wrong. While, the premise that the stains are composed of real blood does not, itself, require that the dating be invalid, it does in my opinion make for a good first step in that direction.

- What I'm saying is that my focus on the blood issue is totally appropriate to addressing the carbon dating issue. In other words, I am trying to do as requested by you guys -- it's just that I've been slow, and have recently been even slower.

--- Jabba

So you've not provided any direct evidence here, and you're saying that your indirect evidence is better anyway, but you're still not providing that evidence either. It must be embarrassing that even when you yourself pick out the posts that you feel best show your argument, they're still content free.

 

[HighRiser]

Jabba, it seems to me that you have no logical or reasonable cause to disbelieve the carbon dating results. You have emotional ties to a piece of artwork, perhaps because you have spent a lot of time reading articles that agree with your assumptions.

Or you want us to believe that you do.

 

[godless dave]

- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating. Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?
--- Jabba

Not me.

ETA: That's not entirely true. If you could present some compelling evidence that the shroud is older than the date given by carbon dating, that would suggest to me that there was a problem with all three carbon dating findings. It's remotely possible that all the carbon dating attempts could have come up with the wrong date.

ETA again: and by compelling evidence, I mean something that's at least as accurate as radiometric dating.

 

[Dinwar]

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented. And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.

This is just about the least honest way you could state that without actually lying. It's not that we don't think much of what you presented. It's that you are demonstrably wrong. You've included your post numbers, but forgot to include the innumerable refutations in this thread.

And your opinion is, as I've said frequently, completley worthless in this regard. You do not have even a high-school level of understanding of radiometric decay, so your opinions are completely uninformed. I mean, we had to teach you that radiometric decay wasn't linear, for crying out loud! You simply do not know enough to know what a valid refutation of the C14 data would be.

- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating. Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?

No one that knows what they're talking about. The C14 data, if true, COMPLETELY disproves the authenticity of the shroud. Period. There is no alternative. And to prove the C14 data wrong, you have to actually address the C14 data, not run off chaising wild geese like "Oh, but there's blood on it!" As if no one since the 1st century had blood.

 

[pakeha]

IIRC the UA lab also dated at least one other "religious" artifact, but I the source eludes me at the moment.

This one?

And worse yet, IanS.
One of those labs used to date the shroud was used to ¹⁴C date some relics fairly recently
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618151228.htm
"New dating evidence supports claims that bones found under a church floor in Bulgaria may be of John the Baptist, who is described in the Bible as a leading prophet and relative of Jesus Christ. A team from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University dated a knucklebone from the right hand to the 1st century AD, a date which fits with the widely held view of when he would have lived. The researchers say they were surprised when they discovered the very early age of the remains adding, however, that dating evidence alone cannot prove the bones to be of John the Baptist."

No protests about the reliability of the lab.
Odd.

- Just in case you'd like to review other things I’ve said about the “direct” evidence (Yeah, right!), here are some of my past quotes: #’s 4457, 3825, 3476, 3432, 3154, 3107, 3081 and 2745. It isn’t like I haven’t tried to present direct evidence against the carbon dating -- you guys just don’t think much of what I’ve presented. And, I just think you’re wrong to think that.
- But, here IS a place where we might be able to isolate a BASIC disagreement, and agree to disagree regarding it – which I claim would be a significant step in the right direction. (One of my goals in the current discussion is to better explain that claim.)
- In regard to the direct evidence against the carbon dating, you guys keep saying something to the effect that until I can prove the carbon dating wrong with the direct evidence, I’m wasting your time presenting what I’m calling “indirect” evidence against the dating. Is there anyone out there who does not take that position?
--- Jabba

Jabba, which of those posts hasn't been debunked repeatedly?

 

[12AX7]

As a lurker to this thread, I must say that I've never seen someone hold on to a thoroughly-debunked belief quite as hard as Jabba has. No wonder woo is as prevalent as it is in this world. Thaks to all, this has been very informative!