Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pgwenthold]

Or if he admitted he believed it.

Or at least admitted that it is the only way that his supposed objections matter.

The whole "oooooo, the number of labs was dropped from 7 to 3" as if it is nefarious, for example. Aside from the fact that people have explained why that was actually done, he needs to explain why that would actually be a problem. If it is suspicious that the number of labs was reduced, what is actually suspected? Does he think that the other 4 labs would have gotten an older date? On what grounds? Does it mean we should suspect that they were cut out of the process because someone, somewhere was concerned that those labs might have found an older date? If so, who? And why didn't they suspect the labs that were allowed to test it?

The question is, and this is the thrust of Dinwar's comments, that 3 independent labs in agreement is more than sufficient to assign an unequivocal date based on the methodology. The only way it would be suspicious is if there is reason to believe that the 3 labs were not acting independently, or that the choice of the three labs was made on the basis of a preconceived bias. Either of these positions requires a conspiracy of some sort. So if "the number of labs was cut from 7 to 3" is really a problem, it could only be because of some sort of conspiracy. Absent a conspiracy, what's the difference?

Similar for all the stuff about who was present and witnessed the cutting, etc. Why does that matter? Unless, of course, the suggestion is that somewhere, a sample was switched or something. But if that happened, it also indicates a conspiracy.

Yes, chain of custody, proper handling of evidence and things like that are important in legal proceedings, and the absence of such can (but does not have to) create "reasonable doubt." However, the basis for it is that the absence of such things allows for unscrupulous actions to occur. Criminals are allowed to get evidence thrown out because they can convince the judge that it is possible that someone could have tampered with it because of bad handling procedures. Indeed, that is what Jabba seems to be trying to sell with his objections. The problem he has is that in going that route, it begs the question of _who_ tampered with it. And in this case, it would have to be Vatican.

So we aren't talking about Mark Furman, here, and whether he was racist, and therefore you can't rule out the possibility that he tampered with the evidence in the OJ trial. In that case, it makes sense for the defense to focus on the chain of custody and how evidence was collected, because they could make the case that there was motive to tamper, and poor evidence handling would provide opportunity. However, we are talking about folks within the Vatican conspiring to make the shroud look younger than it is. That is the only reason why the opportunity to tamper with the evidence matters. Because if no one is intent on tampering with the samples, who cares about whether the details of the protocol were followed?

tl;dr answer: it's not enough to say "they didn't follow procedures." You have to show why that matters. And it only matters if there was a conspiracy.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

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.

Ta, that's where my research was heading, but I'm not very methodical

 

[The Norseman]

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.

Urrr.... arrgggg... ahhhh...

Now that you plant the suggestion in my mind... must... resist...

 

[pakeha]

^
Resistance is futile, The Norseman.

 

[The Norseman]

pakeha,

I am "thinking" that what YOU and the others desire is not something that I can "accomplish" within what, for you, must be an eternity.

To help "SPEED" up this process, I will be shortly proposing "two" things that I think that you and I and the courts can all "agree" "on" and this proposal that I will BE SHORTLY proposing to you all on JREF may consist of fifteen "short" proofs with which I will begin to try and "convince" everyone (including "the" court system in its ENTIRETY) that the weight of the EVIDENCE that I will provide after a brief hiatus in order for me to gather together the necessary INFORMATION that I'm sure that you, pakeha, will require of me to conclusively demonstrate, to wit:

1) that "my" meandering sentences will not, in fact, be taken as evidence other than what I should decide to produce which, when produced shortly, WILL be overwhelming EVIDENCE that I do indeed have the necessary information with which you will be CONVINCED that all evidence will point to my posting soon.

2a) with this "sub-category" that has now been agreed upon AS ESTABLISHED by you, pakeha, as the designated "anti-Norseman poster"

2b) and with our MUTUAL "agreement" as you the designated official JREF anti-Norseman poster, we shall together with the courts, "decide" when next I will have posted, that a "second" as it were, shall be obtained and ORDAINED with enough "evidence" to convince, with a propensity thereof, that this PROPERLY ordained and obtained "person" of the JREF will act in your stead

2c) because the tremendous "dog pile" put upon me to tryingly type tantalizing, tepid taunts I cannot take the "effort" in responding to each and every individual person on JREF which necessitates the forming of the special "response" team which includes you and one other PERSON as described above.

2d) this will all have to be typeset and presented before the judge (though, due to my age, I cannot achieve this printing in the triplicate any longer) which, I'm sure, you will ask me to HAVE "ready" soon, but "you" know me. I can only talk to one person on THE INTERNET at a time, it seems and everyone "wants" to discuss these Important issues "with me" at the SAME TIME.

Some days, I cannot keep UP WITH the "demand".

This WILL BE my final post on this, or any subject, UNTIL I will post again "after" some indeterminate TIME will expire. Usually "this" means about "one" minute.

I'll be back in black.

-Norseman

 

[pakeha]

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Genius

 

[abaddon]

Norseman, you crack me up.

 

[wollery]

Norseman, you either need a therapist or a medal, but I don't know which.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Shoot, why not both?

 

[The Norseman]

Norseman, you either need a therapist or a medal, but I don't know which.

The real problem is that I actually started to understand what I wrote and yes, I do need some sort of therapy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

scarily good.

 

[The Norseman]

scarily good.

It reminds me of what it might be like to actually be in a train wreck and come out unscathed.

It's terrifying and awesome but at the same time, you definitely do not want to do it again.

 

[pakeha]

The real problem is that I actually started to understand what I wrote ...

That WOULD be disturbing.

 

[Jabba]

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."

Garrette,

- Unfortunately, I can't quite say yes or no -- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute -- but at this point, it sure looks like the invisible patch theory just doesn't work. I've asked for some help from my friends in defending the theory -- but, I haven't gotten any since being told (by the guy who claims to do it) that a truly invisible patch requires using undamaged thread from the original cloth, anyway...
- You can see a more complete answer at post #3641.

--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Garrette,

- Unfortunately, I can't quite say yes or no -- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute -- but at this point, it sure looks like the invisible patch theory just doesn't work. I've asked for some help from my friends in defending the theory -- but, I haven't gotten any since being told (by the guy who claims to do it) that a truly invisible patch requires using undamaged thread from the original cloth, anyway...
- You can see a more complete answer at post #3641.

--- Jabba

Rich:

Since "rebut" and "refute"are generally considered synonymous, upon what is your idea that they are, and should be, distinguished, based?

When do you intend to present your actual argument as to why the ¹⁴C dating of the cloth should and must be set aside, beyond your really really really strong desire that the medieval artifact be the True Shroud^TM?

 

[Dinwar]

- Unfortunately, I can't quite say yes or no

Gee, what a surprise.

for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute

What, you're being overly-pedantic in a vain attempt to hide from yourself the fact that you've been well and truly trounced? What a shock!

Jabba, after a certain point it doesn't matter if you were punched or slapped; once you're knocked out you've lost the match.

but at this point, it sure looks like the invisible patch theory just doesn't work.

Oh, it's far, far worse. Because all reweaving techniques utilize material from the cloth itself, an invisible patch would make the C14 dating more accurate, as instead of sampling from one location the patch would actually be a composite sample of the entire shroud.

I've asked for some help from my friends in defending the theory -- but, I haven't gotten any since being told (by the guy who claims to do it) that a truly invisible patch requires using undamaged thread from the original cloth, anyway...

I told you that a few months ago, Jabba. I even linked to experts on the topic, who said the same thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Garrette,

- Unfortunately, I can't quite say yes or no

In exactly the same way that you're unable to say what is and isn't evidence.

-- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute

Of course you do. This enables you to completely disregard the actual argument and pretend that irrelevant quibbles about the meanings of words need to be sorted out before any progress can be made.

It also explains exactly why you haven't advanced a single nanometer since you began this folly.

-- but at this point, it sure looks like the invisible patch theory just doesn't work.

It never looked as though it did. Ever.

I've asked for some help from my friends in defending the theory -- but, I haven't gotten any since being told (by the guy who claims to do it) that a truly invisible patch requires using undamaged thread from the original cloth, anyway...

Does this count as a refutation or a rebuttal?

Clearly, it counts as a reason for your so-called friends to want nothing to do with your dead horse of an argument.

Go figure.

- You can see a more complete answer at post #3641.

Apparently "complete" is another word whose meaning escapes you.

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Jabba
-- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute

Rebut vs. Refute

To rebut is to try to prove something isn't true, but to refute is to actually prove it isn't. Getting them mixed up won't get you kicked out of the debate club, but it's worth knowing the difference.

I agree with these definitions. But the claim that the Shroud is first century has been refuted. The claim that only a non representative 14th century patch area was C14 tested has been refuted. Jabba and shroud enthusiasts are rebutting these findings.

 

[slyjoe]

Rebut vs. Refute

I agree with these definitions. But the claim that the Shroud is first century has been refuted. The claim that only a non representative 14th century patch area was C14 tested has been refuted. Jabba and shroud enthusiasts are rebutting these findings.

As I like to remember:

Rebut - words
Refute - evidence

Not 100% true, but useful to me