Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

The invisible patch again???

And bacterial contamination, and carbon monoxide and Vatican fakery and pretty much every lunatic idea the shroudies have ever pandered..

Pharaoh is generous to remind me the paper was read at the Valencia ShroudCom last Spring.

Jabba, is this really what you have to offer the thread?

Yep.. No peer-review, no qualification, no experience; the usual shroudie.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Kindly stop wasting our time with this sort of rubbish, do your own research and provide some evidence to support your claims.

This could probably have been posted in response to every single post Jabba's made so far in this thread.

 

[pakeha]

And power. Don't forget the power.]

Yes.
Power.
The city where I work is preparing for the yearly show of power called Semana Santa.
To paraphrase a famous citation:
There are no atheists in Spain during Semana Samnta.

 

[The Norseman]

This could probably have been posted in response to every single post Jabba's made so far in this thread.

Don't tempt me!

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/The Plan

...Jabba, I've explained this to you before: the reason you seem to have all kinds of questions thrown at you is because you're thrashing around like an eel dumpted into fomaldahyde (always did feel sorry for that poor thing, but the EPA wanted a biological grab sample). If you'd stick to one single issue, and actually acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms, it would be relatively easy to address...

Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.
- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba

 

[kerikiwi]

Dinwar,

....
--- Jabba

Well, that was a waste of time, wasn't it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.
- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba

Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the ¹⁴C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dinwar,

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)

You don't really wonder why people have long since stopped taking you seriously, do you?

- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case.

It just now occurred to you that this is the way forward, did it?

This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along.

You appear to have invented a new tense - the future non-indicative conditional pluperfect.

And here we all were thinking this thread would never produce anything worthwhile.

Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."

You don't say.

- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.

It may eventually occur to you that the reason underlying this endless cycle is that what you glibly refer to as "acknowledging and addressing" is readily apparent to everyone else as and "obstructing and obfuscating".

Although I won't be putting any money on it.

- We'll see what happens.

--- Jabba

We've already seen.

You'll be back.

 

[Garrette]

And after all this time and discussion Jabba still has to go "dig up" the evidence. He still does not have it at hand and still cannot explain it.

I used to waiver between thinking Jabba was serious but disorganized and thinking Jabba was not serious at all. I no longer waiver. Jabba has no intent to discuss seriously or honestly.

 

[Belz...]

- OK. I'll try to do exactly that. (Though again, I'm telling you what I'm going to do rather than just doing it...)

Yeah, it would be much better if you did what you should do rather than just saying it.

- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile

How many years are we talking about ?

 

[Giordano]

Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the ¹⁴C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.

Jabba,
Just to remind you, there is a thread search tool, upper right on the page when you are logged in, that should make this easy.

I know this tool was pointed out to you before. However you must have forgotten, because you recently indicated uncertainty as to whether you had previously posted a link to a particular paper. Indeed you had posted that link, multiple times.

 

[Jabba]

Rich:

Here's a novel idea: When you "dig up" something "against" the ¹⁴C dating, run a search of the thread. If what you have "dug up" has already been refuted, don't bother posting it.

Don't just repeat the same old stuff.

Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...

​

- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.

You don't even remember what you've posted yourself.

- We'll see.
--- Rich

We've already seen.

You'll be back.

Smeg!

The time loop we're stuck in here seems to be getting shorter and shorter.

 

[Belz...]

- OK. That will slow me down some more...

What a funny guy you are. I'm sure those 2 minutes of search will, obviously, delay you a bit, but I'm not sure it was worth mentioning it.

- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.

I hear vitamin B12 is useful for memory problems, Jabba.

 

[godless dave]

- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. This might be the hardest part in that there is likely to be numerous criticisms presented, and then numerous criticisms of each of my attempts to address a criticism.

Well that's how rational discourse works. Were you expecting some other approach?

 

[pakeha]

...
- I'll dig up all that I can against the overall carbon dating process in this case. This will take awhile -- though, I'll plan on introducing the evidence and arguments as I go along. Even so, there will probably be some long gaps between "introductions."
- I will also try to acknowledge and address at least a few criticisms. ...

Hi, Jabba.
I think it would be a great idea if you just post up what you have found to be the most convincing evidence against the dating.
I think you'd do well to stick to the one paper or study until we're through with it.
Keep in mind that unless it's something new, it's most likely been rebutted and refuted several times. If you think the rebuttal isn't solid enough, give some reasons why that is so.

Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

Come, come. The invisible patch idea has been thoroughly refuted.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

from: http://messiahornot.com/challenge99.php

From:http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68
So in a nutshell, we have cutting and pasting from one or more websites, avoidance of legitimate questions, repeating of points already shown to be without merit, empty promises to provide evidence, multi day sabbaticals and obfuscation.
Am I the only one here to smell a troll? Jabba, are you DOC?

I'd like to celebrate the anniversary of the above post, as relevant today as it was when it was posted.

 

[dlorde]

- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.

Memory not required. To 'rebut' is to 'refute' using evidence or argument (in many dictionaries .

Why do you have to rush out to the flaky argument store again, when your 'years of research' should have provided a stock of flaky arguments big enough to last many threads-worth of shroud debunking?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- OK. That will slow me down some more...
- Almost every claim I've made has been rebutted -- some effectively. But, off the top of my (admittedly biased) head, I don't remember anything being refuted.
- We'll see.
--- Rich

Rich:

The only one of your claims that has not been refuted, rebutted, shown to be wishful thinking, demonstrated to be unsupported allegation of conspiracy, or thoughroughly shown to be just flat wrong is the fact that you want the medieval artifact to be the True Shroud^TM.

When you "dig up" something "against" the ¹⁴C dating, do the thread search. If you have posted it before, read the comments. If you do not feel that the comments adequately address the idea that the ¹⁴C dating is dependable, and accurate, then explain why, with support and citations.

Hint:
1. Don't bring up the "invisible patch" that isn't there; the patch that has never been noticed by anyone who has actually handled the cloth.

2. Don't try the "bioplastic contamination" dodge, until you do the math to show just how much contamination all three labs would have had to miss.

3. Don't try the "¹⁴C dating isn't reliable" routine, unless and until you can demonstrate how three independent labs would make the same idenstical mistake.

4. Don't try the Pray Codex route.

5. Don't even worry about the artistic and stylistic problems, the anatomical impossibilities (did you ever even try to assume the Shroud Slouch ^TM?), the historical inaccuracies, or any of that. Those only address the nature of the medieval artifact. They do nothing to change the fact that three different labs demonstrated conclusively that whatever the cloth may be, it is a medieval artifact.

 

[Olowkow]

From
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Nature 337, 611 - 615 (16 February 1989) [/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin[/FONT]

Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

The phrase "conclusive evidence" is not uttered lightly in trusted scientific publications such as Nature. They did not say "some evidence that is ambiguous" and may allow for an error of 1500 years.

Publishing in Nature is one of the most prestigious feats any scientist can aspire to. I am trying to imagine, in all seriousness, doubting or dismissing the findings of the following group of people who have signed off on the paper:

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif]P. E. Damon*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], D. J. Donahue†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], B. H. Gore*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], A. L. Hatheway†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], A. J. T. Jull*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], T. W. Linick†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], P. J. Sercel†[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], L. J. Toolin*[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], C. R. Bronk‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], E. T. Hall‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], R. E. M. Hedges‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], R. Housley‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], I. A. Law‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], C. Perry‡[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], G. Bonani§[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], S. Trumbore ∥£[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], W. Woelfli§[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], J. C. Ambers¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], S. G. E. Bowman¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif], M. N. Leese¶[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans serif] & M. S. Tite¶[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

in favor of and deference to an obvious religious zealot, and less clearly an outright fraud, Marinelli, and her followers who merely try to raise doubts in the guise of science with no evidence whatsoever.

The world of honest scientific endeavor is very different from the sphere of the religious or political desire or need to believe.