Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
RecoveringYuppy said:
Serioous question: Did Jabba ever make the attempt to rebut the findings?
Click to expand...

I would say he has, much like the example provided in my link to the definitions.

A Jesuit priest has taken to YouTube and his blog to rebut arguments raised by British physicist Stephen Hawking.
Click to expand...

No evidence of course, just making claims counter to the proven findings. In the example of the priest, perhaps he bolsters his claims with biblical references, not evidence at all.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabba
-- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute

Olowkow said:
Rebut vs. Refute
Quote:
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.
Click to expand...
Olowkow,
- You probably don't want me to thank you -- but, thanks anyway.
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabba
-- for one thing, I currently distinguish between rebut and refute

Olowkow,
- You probably don't want me to thank you -- but, thanks anyway.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome.:) It's the linguist in me. You have no enemies here.

Still doesn't make the shroud 1st century though.;)
 
Currently, I distinguish between reality and wishful thinking.
 
Olowkow said:
You have no enemies here.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean. Adversaries, certainly. Opposition, definitely. Foes, not so much--this is a discussion, not an altercation. That said, some of us are getting rather fed up with the constant evasions.

Oddly enough, it's the people who stand against you that are interested in the truth, Jabba. Some of us have even offered arguments and evidence that could support your case. In contrast, you've done little besides a glorified and verbose version of "Lalala I'm not listening." It's certainly something to think about.
 
Dinwar said:
Depends on what you mean. Adversaries, certainly. Opposition, definitely. Foes, not so much--this is a discussion, not an altercation. That said, some of us are getting rather fed up with the constant evasions.

Oddly enough, it's the people who stand against you that are interested in the truth, Jabba. Some of us have even offered arguments and evidence that could support your case. In contrast, you've done little besides a glorified and verbose version of "Lalala I'm not listening." It's certainly something to think about.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, I don't know. He's having fun, too bad no one else is.:D

I mean, Jabba has no enemies, and apparently you agree.
 
Jabba said:
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. ..
Click to expand...

Jabba, "...the guy who claims to do it" is the expert the pro-authenticity advocates quote.
Remember?

Also please keep in mind there is no such thing as a truly invisible patch.
Remember?
It's always visible from the reverse side of the repaired cloth.
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...
Okay. Has it been refuted? Yes or no.

Note that I am here giving you an extra chance that you have not earned.
 
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..
Click to expand...

Jabba, perhaps you are thinking about this the wrong way. The theory doesn't work because it is untenable. And your friends cannot defend it for the same reason. The best thing for you right now is to be honest and state that as far as you are concerned, the authenticity of the shroud is a matter of faith, very like the existence of God. Scientifically, the shroud is a medieval forgery and whether blood or other bodily excretions are on it has no bearing on the argument, if the medium it is painted on is proven to be a medieval artifact.

Incidentally you could for for the "My great grandfather's axe argument." It goes like this...my grandfather had new handle made, my father had a new blade fitted, but it is still my great grandfather's axe. :)
 
Jabba,

Why don't you try posting your own personal research and understanding about the invisible patch on some of the pro-authenticity sites and see what happens. If you thought you were being mistreated here.......

Ward
 
Last edited:
Long ago I posited that this was just an attempt by Jabba to see how long he could keep this thread going, and nothing more.

I still think that is all this is.
 
I'd agree with that, with a quibble on the nothing more.
I have learned a lot from this thread, from Philip the Fair's relations with Henry VII to the principles of 14C dating.
And so much more.
 
wardenclyffe said:
Jabba,

Why don't you try posting your own personal research and understanding about the invisible patch on some of the pro-authenticity sites and see what happens. If you thought you were being mistreated here.......

Ward
Click to expand...
Ward,
- Just followed your suggestion. I.E.,

- I think that I asked about this previously (somewhere on Dan’s blog) — but, if I did, I can’t find it…
- According to Michael Ehrlich — the head of “Without a Trace,” the company to which Joe Marino refers when claiming that a really invisible patch is possible — the process for producing a really invisible patch requires the exclusive use of undamaged threads from the original cloth. In other words, even if this process were used on the carbon dating sample from the Shroud, the patch should show the same age as the rest of the cloth…
- Do we have a counter claim?
- (I have a possibility, but don’t know that it really makes sense.)


- I do have a possibility in mind -- which makes it difficult for me to dump (accept the refutation of) the patch theory altogether, but won't mention it till I get some word back (or, fail to get any word back) from my friends.

--- Jabba
 
Last edited:
What in the name of Isis are you talking about?

You have a possible explanation for something or other which probably doesn't make sense, but you're going to keep it secret until you don't hear back from some unnamed people on an unnamed website?

And you can't give those unnamed people too many clues about what you're talking about either because you can't remember if you asked them the same question previously, or what their answers were? And your self-admittedly faulty memory is apparently the only research tool available to you?


Can you please run me through your secondary plan for this thread again? I believe it had something to do with devising a more effective means of conducting an online debate.

I'd look it up for myself but I need to hold my sides, lest they split.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Ward,
- Just followed your suggestion. I.E.,

- I think that I asked about this previously (somewhere on Dan’s blog) — but, if I did, I can’t find it…
- According to Michael Ehrlich — the head of “Without a Trace,” the company to which Joe Marino refers when claiming that a really invisible patch is possible — the process for producing a really invisible patch requires the exclusive use of undamaged threads from the original cloth. In other words, even if this process were used on the carbon dating sample from the Shroud, the patch should show the same age as the rest of the cloth…
- Do we have a counter claim?
- (I have a possibility, but don’t know that it really makes sense.)


- I do have a possibility in mind -- which makes it difficult for me to dump (accept the refutation of) the patch theory altogether, but won't mention it till I get some word back (or, fail to get any word back) from my friends.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Every one of your posts reads like another attempt to gain time while you do nothing to prove your claims.
 
So your answer is "No, the invisible patch theory has not been refuted."

And it is "no" even though you have no evidence against it, have not formulated a hypothesis about it, and have no support for your vague ideas.

That should clinch it for all but the most ardent deniers of fact: There is no point engaging you except to demonstrate to lurkers the vapidity of the pro-authenticity position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom