Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Giordano]

Jabba,

If you already read posts # 4817 and 4818, please re-read them. If you haven't, please read them now. There is much wisdom therein.

 

[pakeha]

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be allowing that such an error is possible, only highly unlikely -- especially, considering the Vatican's role in the overall process. Am I reading you right?
--- Rich

What?
Are you really considering the Vatican falsified the results?

This is where I differ from skeptics. This is the single best-controled radiocarbon dating experiment in history. I'm perfectly willing to say that until such time as someone presents evidence for an error, it is unreasonable to assume there is one. The burden of proof has been met and exceeded, by orders of magnitude, by those who conducted the experiment. To withhold agreement is irrational.

What, specifically, did they do that would mess up the experiment? I've demonstrated in this thread that sampling protocols are quite fluid in the real world, and unless evidence is presented for the sample being taken from an inappropriate location (remember, your invisible patch idea has been completely debunked, so that isn't it), the Vatican's roll is irrelevant. As long as the sample site is representative of the material in the shroud, NOTHING the Vatican did would have ANY impact on the data.

...I suspect Jabba is moving toward the (even more) lunatic fringe of shroudism; the ravings of Kersten and Bonnet-Eymar alleging that the Vatican faked the whole process.

I agree with your suspicion.

...- Unfortunately, to properly evaluate the direct evidence re the overall carbon dating process in this case requires an evaluation of our opposing dialectics. ...
- My claim is that my belief has not, as you say, "been thoroughly debunked" over here --

What does dialectic have to do with anything, Jabba?

I've asked you before and I ask again:
Please explain which of your beliefs has not been thoroughly debunked.

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,

- The next aspect of our dialectic that can properly be placed upon our agree-to-disagree scale is my claim that my inability to “keep up” and effectively present my case would be totally understandable even if I WERE well-read (on this subject), intelligent and honest.
- For some reason, you guys just can’t seem to appreciate these, my excuses:

a. While I’ve been FOLLOWING the story with interest for about 40 years (I think), I didn’t start STUDYING the story until a few years ago.
b. I’m naturally slow.
c. I’m relatively old and (“dementia” or not) my memory isn’t nearly as good as it used to be.
d. Until just recently, I didn’t keep track of what I had read and where. Even now, I seem to be too rushed to do a good job.
e. I was “supposed” to have a team to help me, but lost them before I got started with you guys.
f. Having over 70 opponents -- and maybe 2 short term helpers – during my year on this thread is bound to make it difficult to keep up.
g. For every question or comment I answer, I typically get several new ones. And while some of these have been expressed before, many of them have not, and my to-do list grows exponentially as we speak.
h. And finally, you guys keep “calling me names” – which is difficult to ignore.
- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate.

--- Jabba

Find an example post and report it.

You have so many reasons why you can't hold up your end of the discussion, but you only need to provide evidence that the ¹⁴C dating is wrong, and that a first century date is the correctl date of origin.

 

[abaddon]

Find an example post and report it.

You have so many reasons why you can't hold up your end of the discussion, but you only need to provide evidence that the ¹⁴C dating is wrong, and that a first century date is the correctl date of origin.

^^This.

Jabba, you are fortunate that the participants in this thread have remained within the terms of the MA, despite your ongoing pattern of posting about evidence you will present at some unspecified point in the future and the frustration this engenders. If you have any, post it already.

To me, this is a transparent attempt to play the "JREF was mean to me" card.

This is, of course, not the case. You have been allowed over one year of latitude in avoiding presenting ANY evidence. Present something, anything, for the first time in your JREF career. Otherwise, all you have is obfuscation and nothing much of a case.

If I posted what I really thought about what you have presented so far, I would likely earn a ban, but I remain civil as mandated by the MA, as has everyone else here. Given your intransigent refusal to present anything substantive, I find it surprising that this thread has remain as civil as it is. Don't try to waste further time and posts with your faux victim psychology.

 

[Belz...]

Elypsis,

- Well, at least my efforts are notable.

You just keep patting yourself on the back, now.

 

[Belz...]

b. I’m naturally slow.

No, you're naturally incapable of honest research.

- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate.

JABBA, read this: STOP trying to pretend that it's just a disagreement. You NEED to show the C14 dating to be wrong before you can show anything about the shroud. Read that: The C14 is your BIGGEST PROBLEM. You need to address it before ANYHING ELSE. STOP trying to derail the topic to other things. NO ONE is taking your bait. ADDRESS THE C14. Otherwise, admit that you have LOST.

 

[pakeha]

...g. For every question or comment I answer, I typically get several new ones. And while some of these have been expressed before, many of them have not, and my to-do list grows exponentially as we speak.
h. And finally, you guys keep “calling me names” – which is difficult to ignore.

- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate. ...

g. Jabba, haven't you figured out the questions and comments revolve around one point? Hint: it's the dating of the cloth to the 14th century.

h. Jabba, haven't you figured out that claiming you have evidence to contradict the dating of the TS and not post it up can be considered manipulative and dishonest trolling?

 

[catsmate]

- Unfortunately, to properly evaluate the direct evidence re the overall carbon dating process in this case requires an evaluation of our opposing dialectics.

Rubbish. Your attempt to divert and distract from the weakness of your arguments has been addressed before.

My claim is that my belief has not, as you say, "been thoroughly debunked" over here

Yes it has. Your inability to accept reality doesn't change it.

it's just that everyone on this thread (besides me) share your biases (my biases are the opposite of yours). And then I claim that they all share your biases because they have effectively chased away everyone who doesn't (except me) -- with concentrated insults and sarcasm.

Pathetic. Your "arguments" have been addressed with facts, evidence and science. You have failed to respond in kind, resorting to lies, evasion and repetition to cover over your inability to do so.

That your buddies chase opponents off with their flaming, and piling on, should be apparent to any neutral observer -- which allows me to be happy about agreeing to disagree. Most heretofore neutral observers (should there be any) should fall on my side of this particular disagreement.

Wow, what a pile of crap. A neutral observer would see that you continually fail to address facts, repeat the same debunked rubbish time after time and cannot handle reality

I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

Try bringing some evidence for your opinions next time.

Jabba, haven't you figured out the questions and comments revolve around one point? Hint: it's the dating of the cloth to the 14th century.

Well be can't supply any evidence to contradict that dating so...........

 

[pakeha]

time to post up those leggings again!
Yes!

 

[Akhenaten]

Agatha,

- The next aspect of our dialectic that can properly be placed upon our agree-to-disagree scale is my claim that my inability to “keep up” and effectively present my case would be totally understandable even if I WERE well-read (on this subject), intelligent and honest.

Umm . . . no.

Your inability to keep up (and Isis knows, it's not that hard) is yours and yours alone.

Whether you agree or disagree with this is completely irrelevant.


I might just add that it seems that your having latched on to the SoT non-controversy as a method of advancing your malformed ideas about "how to have a better argument" has not so much backfired on you as it has gone off in your face like an exploding cigar.

You're standing there with soot stains all over your face saying "Yeah, but what about the bluuurd?"

- For some reason, you guys just can’t seem to appreciate these, my excuses:

Some reason?

The reason is perfectly clear, Jabba.

The reason is that your pathetic excuse for an argument in favour of the shroud's authenticity amounts to nothing more than your own fervent desire that it be so.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the miserably fact-free case you've attempted to make and now (well, for quite some time, actually) you find yourself with no other defence than "Waah! They's picking on me!"

It's time to grow up, really.

a. While I’ve been FOLLOWING the story with interest for about 40 years (I think), I didn’t start STUDYING the story until a few years ago.

No, this is wrong.

The evidence says that you have yet to begin STUDYING the shroud.

b. I’m naturally slow.

Personal problem. Take it to Community.

c. I’m relatively old and (“dementia” or not) my memory isn’t nearly as good as it used to be.

Personal problem. Take it to Community.

d. Until just recently, I didn’t keep track of what I had read and where. Even now, I seem to be too rushed to do a good job.

Until I started reading this thread (and that appears to be at about the same time you did) I had very little knowledge about the Shroud of Turin myself.

Without the slightest sense of needing to hurry, and indeed armed with nothing more than a casual interest, I've learned smegging great heaps about the shroud.

You, on the other hand, appear to have learned absolutely nothing.

e. I was “supposed” to have a team to help me, but lost them before I got started with you guys.

Go figure.

f. Having over 70 opponents -- and maybe 2 short term helpers – during my year on this thread is bound to make it difficult to keep up.

You have but one opponent.

Reality.

Cry me a river, but you'd lost before you started.

g. For every question or comment I answer, I typically get several new ones. And while some of these have been expressed before, many of them have not, and my to-do list grows exponentially as we speak.

Your to-do list has, as it's had from the beginning, but a single item on it: provide evidence of a faulty carbon dating procedure.

That you choose to add garbage such as blowed-up aeroplanes and "how to argue about arguing" to that list and try to include it in the subject matter of this thread is nobody's problem but your own.

h. And finally, you guys keep “calling me names” – which is difficult to ignore.

Report it and move on.

- Anyway, I’d like to place this on our agree to disagree scale for any neutral viewers to evaluate.

There's no such thing. There is, of course, an ever lengthening "Wrongness of Jabba" scale and you may, I think, rest assured that this latest bleat will have been added to it.

You appear to be completely incapable of seeing that any such viewers would have been convinced of the shroud's fakerocity months ago for no other reason than the abject poverty of your attempts to present the case for realicitude.

If you'd conducted the same standard of argument in favour of gravity there'd be a significant number of readers currently wondering why the hell they can't fly.

 

[Akhenaten]

time to post up those leggings again!
Yes!

Nice legs, shame about the face.

​

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

Until I started reading this thread (and that appears to be at about the same time you did) I had very little knowledge about the Shroud of Turin myself.

Without the slightest sense of needing to hurry, and indeed armed with nothing more than a casual interest, I've learned smegging great heaps about the shroud.

I agree with this entirely. Putting the "E" in JREF.

I thank the knowledgeable posters in this thread, and I'm fascinated by the approach of the shroud believer(s). The believers may want to read my sig line.

PLUS - I learned a new word just from this post - "smegging". A second "E"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Umm . . . no.

Your inability to keep up (and Isis knows, it's not that hard) is yours and yours alone.

Whether you agree or disagree with this is completely irrelevant.


I might just add that it seems that your having latched on to the SoT non-controversy as a method of advancing your malformed ideas about "how to have a better argument" has not so much backfired on you as it has gone off in your face like an exploding cigar.

You're standing there with soot stains all over your face saying "Yeah, but what about the bluuurd?"





Some reason?

The reason is perfectly clear, Jabba.

The reason is that your pathetic excuse for an argument in favour of the shroud's authenticity amounts to nothing more than your own fervent desire that it be so.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the miserably fact-free case you've attempted to make and now (well, for quite some time, actually) you find yourself with no other defence than "Waah! They's picking on me!"

It's time to grow up, really.





No, this is wrong.

The evidence says that you have yet to begin STUDYING the shroud.





Personal problem. Take it to Community.





Personal problem. Take it to Community.





Until I started reading this thread (and that appears to be at about the same time you did) I had very little knowledge about the Shroud of Turin myself.

Without the slightest sense of needing to hurry, and indeed armed with nothing more than a casual interest, I've learned smegging great heaps about the shroud.

You, on the other hand, appear to have learned absolutely nothing.





Go figure.





You have but one opponent.

Reality.

Cry me a river, but you'd lost before you started.





Your to-do list has, as it's had from the beginning, but a single item on it: provide evidence of a faulty carbon dating procedure.

That you choose to add garbage such as blowed-up aeroplanes and "how to argue about arguing" to that list and try to include it in the subject matter of this thread is nobody's problem but your own.





Report it and move on.





There's no such thing. There is, of course, an ever lengthening "Wrongness of Jabba" scale and you may, I think, rest assured that this latest bleat will have been added to it.

You appear to be completely incapable of seeing that any such viewers would have been convinced of the shroud's fakerocity months ago for no other reason than the abject poverty of your attempts to present the case for realicitude.

If you'd conducted the same standard of argument in favour of gravity there'd be a significant number of readers currently wondering why the hell they can't fly.

Is there a language nom category for necessary neologisms? If so, "fakeorcity" & "realcitude" are totally on it...

 

[Agatha]

I agree with this entirely. Putting the "E" in JREF.

I thank the knowledgeable posters in this thread, and I'm fascinated by the approach of the shroud believer(s). The believers may want to read my sig line.

PLUS - I learned a new word just from this post - "smegging". A second "E"

Have you ever seen the show 'Red Dwarf'? If not, try to catch it, it's smegging funny.

Oh, and I knew nothing about the S of T other than vaguely that it was something about which kooks and moonbats got excited. Since this thread started I have learned a great deal, none of it supportive of a 1st century date.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

time to post up those leggings again!
Yes!

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img708/2441/leschiffoniers560shopbo.jpg[/qimg]

They should have a face on the crotch.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They should have a face on the crotch.

She probably has one as often as she wants.

 

[Wolrab]

They should have a face on the crotch.

Shouldn't we all...

 

[The Norseman]

She probably has one as often as she wants.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[wollery]

Before I started reading this thread I'd always been of the belief that the Shroud of Turin was a bona fide 1st century relic, but had no direct link to Jesus other than tradition.

What I have learned by participating in this thread has completely changed my view. I knew nothing about the anatomical inaccuracy, the blood running down hair that fell onto shoulders despite the body being prone, the similarity of the image to 14th century artistic styles, the early descriptions of the shroud as a fake and having bright colouring, or even the 14C dating.

To be honest it all came as somewhat of a shock. However, as a scientist the thing that stood out for me was the 14C dating. I couldn't figure out why they would use three independent labs? Why on earth would you need that sort of redundancy built in to what amounts to a simple everyday test? But after a few weeks of reading Jabba's posts it slowly dawned on me - some people simply aren't swayed by hard evidence whilst some people need much more evidence than most to change a deeply held belief. If they had used only one lab then a fair proportion of the people who believed in the shroud would have dismissed the result as probably an error. Use two labs and you'll get 90% of them to change their minds. Use 3 labs and it's going to be more like 99.9%.

However, if you were to use 10 labs then there'd still be that one in a million who just wouldn't believe. It's a problem of diminishing returns, up to a limit the more labs you use the more people will accept the result, but eventually you get to a point where no matter how many labs are involved, and no matter which part of the cloth is sampled there will remain a small hardcore of believers who simply won't accept it. You could carve up the whole cloth, farm it out to 100 labs, find they all agree to within 10 years and there would still be people who would speculate about invisible patches, conspiracies involving the Vatican and regeneration energies altering the chemistry of the cloth.

In short, with some people you just can't win. So they went for the 99.9% of people who are open to hard data and said, "Sod the rest, they ain't worth the effort!"

The sad thing is that I am totally open to being convinced by the evidence. As I said to someone just the other week who was trying to sell me on a self-awareness course that was actually a course on how to alter your reality - "If you can give me one tangible piece of evidence to believe that there's anything at all to this then I'm happy to look at it in more detail." They couldn't give me anything but subjective feelings and bovine excrement. My favourite quote from the whole conversation was, "I don't think with my head, I think with my heart." Very true, very obvious and very sad.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with this thread.

To Jabba the suggestion of a few chemicals that could possibly be constituents of blood is proof positive that Jesus bled onto the cloth. Never mind that all of those chemicals could come from other sources, including paints, or that there are billions of other sources for blood, including pigs chickens and leeches.

To Jabba the fact that some people can repair a cloth in a way that's very difficult to find is proof positive that the sample that was sent to the labs was an invisible repair using later cloth. Never mind that there's no way to actually make a repair undetectable to an expert and several textile experts examined the cloth closely, or that the only way to do it well involves using threads from the original cloth, rendering the repaired section indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth in terms of 14C dating.

There's simply no way to convince the Jabbas of this world. They don't want to be convinced. They don't even want to convince anyone else. All they are doing is attempting to shore up their own fragile belief.

There's a reason that Jabba is so slow to get any research done, and it has nothing to do with age or lack of resources, or any of the other myriad excuses he uses. His inability to do research is because deep down he knows what he will find, and he wants to delay it long enough that he never has to actually face the truth.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Great post, wollery.

I've been following this thread with interest. I'd heard of the Shroud and thought it was probably a fake, but didn't know much about it. Now I know it's a fake and have learned all sorts of interesting things along the way.