Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Filippo Lippi said:
I'd like to celebrate the anniversary of the above post, as relevant today as it was when it was posted.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Filippo Lippi.
When I read over the posts for that day, I was touched to find it was the day my favourite shroudie vid was posted to the thread, too.

wardenclyffe said:
That's not the explanation given by Jabba, it's just the explanation given in this pro-authenticity video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

It's pretty funny, but not the explanation given by Jabba, in fact Jabba has offered no explanation for the non-distorted image.

Is this the correct explanation, Jabba?

Ward
Click to expand...

The question remains unanswered to this day, IIRC.
 
pakeha said:
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Filippo Lippi.
When I read over the posts for that day, I was touched to find it was the day my favourite shroudie vid was posted to the thread, too.



The question remains unanswered to this day, IIRC.
Click to expand...

That video presents "Dame" Isabel Piczek as a particle physicist, but the internet doesn't know her as that, it knows her as a "mosaic artist." More dubious qualifications of shroudies?
 
Filippo Lippi said:
That video presents "Dame" Isabel Piczek as a particle physicist, but the internet doesn't know her as that, it knows her as a "mosaic artist." More dubious qualifications of shroudies?
Click to expand...

Quantum confusion indeed, Filippo Lippi.
Here
http://www.fishpond.com.au/c/Books/a/Dame+Isabel+Paczek
the lady is Dame Isabel Paczek, yet in the vid she's identified as Dame Isabel Piczek.

Could be the same person, I'll hunt out some images of both names. The hairdo wold probably clinch matters, I daresay.

Ah.
Apparently the lady is both a physicist AND artist.
Hmm.
Others claim the is not a physicist.
What I do know is she's connected to the Friends of the Shroud.Com (director) as well as the Turin Shroud Center of America (director). Both concerns are private businesses.

According to wiki, she and her sister made the mural behind the altar of the st Thomas Aquinas Cathedral in Reno, Nevada
" The great mural painting behind the altar is 3,500 square feet (330 m2) and was the first mural executed by Hungarian artists Edith and Isabel Piczek. "

Edith, the sister, died in 2012 in her obituary http://www.the-tidings.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2855 we read
"Edith Piczek (like her sister) was born in Hungary where their father was a noted artist and art professor, and graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in Budapest. After World War II, however, the sisters fled to Rome during the Communist regime to pursue their work in sacred art.

There, they won a 1949 competition to paint a mural at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute — to the chagrin of the priests who, upon learning that the sisters were teenagers, hesitated to let them finish the project. Several years and 42 murals later, the Piczeks had removed all doubt about their qualifications."

So, particle physicist, not likely.

Here's anther biography of the lady
http://www.lasvegas-diocese.org/GA_Gallery.html
"
Isabel Piczek, born in Hungary, began the study of art at an early age under the guidance of her father, Zoltan Piczek, who was himself an artist.
She had her first exhibition of works at the age of eleven. She won several first prizes through the next three rears, clearly establishing her career as an artist.
Sharing those formative years with Isabel, her sister Edith nurtured her own artistic capacity. Their artistic partnership blossomed and matured through the years, which makes their personal history difficult to separate.
The Sisters were only young students, when already they were beginning to visualize the contours of a new Sacred Art form, — a new world culture — and they knew there would he no opportunity to create that in the suppressed world behind the iron Curtain under a Communist regime. It was not an easy decision, yet there could he no alternative. They must attempt an escape across the border to Austria. It was extremely dangerous, but good fortune prevailed and they found their way to freedom.
After a brief stay in Vienna, they “painted” their way across Europe, traveling from one monastery to the other, enduring great hardships along the way-which included crossing three borders on foot, once for three days they wondered in the snow of the Alps, finally finding their way to the Italian side. From there they traveled on to Rome which was to become their home for the next three years."

And so on.
So, particle physicist, no.
Dame is a Hungarian honour and her stained glass work is rather good, IMO.
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand the system enough to identify adequate refutations. This is a product of your own ignorance, not a flaw in our arguments.

We've calculated the amount of contamination necessary to provide the errors necessary for you to be right. It amounts to more than the weight of the cloth. Thus, even if every protocol was ignored, as long as you agree that 1) it was Shroud cloth that went through the process, and 2) the process functioned normally (meaning the actual process of producing the radiometric dates--the seed reactors and all the associated machines), you'd still be wrong. As an aside, you proved that you were incapable of doing this calculation,w hich is foundational to radiometric dating.

We've also demonstrated that even if there were an invisible patch (there isn't--we've demonstrated that they're only hard to see, NOT invisible upon close examinationo), the methods used use fibers from other parts of the shroud. Thus, any rewoven patch would be a BETTER sample, as it would be more representative of the shroud as a whole.

We've more than adequately addressed your arguments. They are wrong. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not ours.
 
Dinwar said:
...We've also demonstrated that even if there were an invisible patch (there isn't--we've demonstrated that they're only hard to see, NOT invisible upon close examinationo), the methods used use fibers from other parts of the shroud. Thus, any rewoven patch would be a BETTER sample, as it would be more representative of the shroud as a whole. ...
Click to expand...

That's always been the thing about the 'invisible patch' that Shroudies never seem to grasp- that a French woven patch or darn is made using fibers from the cloth itself.
As Dinwar points out, this make it the IDEAL place from which to take a sample.
Why is this difficult to understand?
 
pakeha said:
That's always been the thing about the 'invisible patch' that Shroudies never seem to grasp- that a French woven patch or darn is made using fibers from the cloth itself.
As Dinwar points out, this make it the IDEAL place from which to take a sample.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward
Click to expand...
Jabba, is this the case? Do you admit that the invisible patch hypothesis has been rebutted/refuted, i.e., shown not to be true?

If you are not willing to say it about this, then there is no point engaging you regarding anything save to continue the demonstration to lurkers the emptiness of your case.

Helpful hint: Your response need only be "yes" or "no."
 
wardenclyffe said:
At this point, I'm willing to give Jabba the benefit of the doubt on the invisible patch claims. His own original research seemed to convince him that this was nonsense. Given his memory and organization skills, he might still come back with patch claims. So far, he has not. He might have reposted long lists published by other people who have patch claims, but I hope that that was just laziness (I can relate) and we were meant to look at the other non-patch stuff. I think we've answered that other stuff, as well, but Jabba answered the patch claims himself with secondary research and his own primary research.

Ward
Click to expand...

I agree completely with you. Sorry if I wasn't clear that my comments were general, not specially referring to Jabba!

My comments were in the nature of musing on the nature of the Shroudies' resistance to the facts. I was influenced by having just finished reading the wiki entry on the TS, which mentions the 'invisible patch' idea without pointing out the absurdity of the claim.
 
Garrette said:
Jabba, is this the case? Do you admit that the invisible patch hypothesis has been rebutted/refuted, i.e., shown not to be true?

If you are not willing to say it about this, then there is no point engaging you regarding anything save to continue the demonstration to lurkers the emptiness of your case.

Helpful hint: Your response need only be "yes" or "no."
Click to expand...
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
Click to expand...

There has got to be some way to nominate this. For SOMETHING...
(cleans beer off monitor)
 
The Norseman said:
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
Click to expand...
He shoots, he scores. LOL
 
The Norseman said:
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
Click to expand...



Will you not also need to organise everyone here into different streams and divisions, voting to appoint team leaders who are awarded different levels of posting privileges etc, whence we can all be formally enrolled into quite different forums and websites unconnected with JREF? I think you will find the urge to do that irresistable.
 
Slowvehicle said:
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 ShroudTM.

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.
Click to expand...
It'd be nici if he dropped the silly Vatican conspiracy nonsense also.

The Norseman said:
Garrette,

I "appreciate" your wanting to continue to discuss the things that we were wanting to "discuss" at a future time.

I will be "happy" to produce evidence that shows conclusively that I will either answer, what you requested, to wit: either

1) an answer indicative of the word "yes"

2) an answer which I will fully produce "EVIDENCE" that is showing that the answer that I will provide shortly, after my fifty seven years of study, will be somewhat on the order of a version of "no".

Perhaps a maybe will suffice, though I doubt it "considering" that none of you have accepted my MAYBE before now, though I'm supremely confident that you will all eventually perhaps come to some sort of conclusion and vote NOT guilty as charged.

Now, I know that you will not "believe" "me" regarding the above. But, I assure you, that any day now, I will begin to formulate an answer which may not CONCLUSIVELY produce the answer that you REQUIRE.


I may or may not be back, depending.
--Norseman
Click to expand...
:D
Have a muffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom