Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Frankly I can't think of a less effective form of debate than the one that Jabba seems to be attempting.
 
Frankly I can't think of a less effective form of debate than the one that Jabba seems to be attempting.


As someone or other once said:


Word10.jpg
 
Last edited:
- To see my question on the Shroudie cite, go to http://shroudstory.com/.
- Go down the right-hand menu to "comments."
- I just got an answer.
--- Jabba

I went there and found this :
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/17/scorching-theory-pseudoscience-or-miracle/

In the first instant of the resurrection the TSM turns to gold except for the bloodstains. The chemical reaction of this bit of miraculous alchemy produces extraordinary heat thus kicking off scorching of the cloth through conduction with what is in effect a metal statue. In the next instant the gold rapidly dematerializes. It happens so fast that the TSM space is now a near perfect vacuum. The cloth snaps shut.

I am not sure what i read. I hope I did not get a stroke. Or maybe lost some neuron.

Then there is this :
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/18/the-curious-a-in-the-hungarian-pray-manuscript/

Which does not seem to have anything to do.

Or this:
http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/

where at the end I see this :

You should ask Thibault directly. He has examined threads from the shroud and has seen different type of fibers, certainly not from the original cloth.

I assume we are speaking about Thibauld Heimburger.

The one from here : http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/scorch-paper-en.pdf

And i get the feeling we are led to another pseudoscientific evaluation from a person not having published it per peer review. At least that's my 5 minute gut feeling check tells me.
 
In the first instant of the resurrection the TSM turns to gold except for the bloodstains. The chemical reaction of this bit of miraculous alchemy produces extraordinary heat thus kicking off scorching of the cloth through conduction with what is in effect a metal statue. In the next instant the gold rapidly dematerializes. It happens so fast that the TSM space is now a near perfect vacuum. The cloth snaps shut.


I am not sure what i read. I hope I did not get a stroke. Or maybe lost some neurons.


I'm almost surprised that poor, sad delusionaut didn't suggest kryptonite rather than gold.
 
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

What the heck? How long have you been waiting, and how long will you continue to wait?

This line of 'reasoning' i.e. withholding assent to the best explanation available makes you come across as disingenuous.
 
My form of debate

Frankly I can't think of a less effective form of debate than the one that Jabba seems to be attempting.
Wollery,

- You guys haven't let me use my form of debate.

- Give me one friendly "spokesperson," or "gatekeeper," who will cooperate with me as I try to keep narrowing our focus. I will cooperate with your spokesperson as he or she tries to narrow their own choice of focus.
- I think those are the keys to effective debate. Eventually, we'll either resolve a basic disagreement, or precisely identify a basic disagreement for which neither of us has anything more to say, and can -- momentarily at least -- agree to disagree.
- Then, we can go on to the next basic disagreement.
- Eventually, we'll get to a point where neither of us has much more to say and any heretofore neutral members of an audience can judge for themselves as to who has the best argument.

- For the moment, I'm focusing on the possibility that the carbon dating sample involved a patch.

--- Jabba
 
I went there and found this :
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/17/scorching-theory-pseudoscience-or-miracle/
Quote:
In the first instant of the resurrection the TSM turns to gold except for the bloodstains. The chemical reaction of this bit of miraculous alchemy produces extraordinary heat thus kicking off scorching of the cloth through conduction with what is in effect a metal statue. In the next instant the gold rapidly dematerializes. It happens so fast that the TSM space is now a near perfect vacuum. The cloth snaps shut.


I am not sure what i read. I hope I did not get a stroke. Or maybe lost some neuron...
Aepervius,
- That was in jest.
--- Jabba
 
- For the moment, I'm focusing on the possibility that the carbon dating sample involved a patch.
A patch that absolutely nobody noticed despite this being the most careful carbon dating ever performed? Are you accusing those involved with the tests of lying, incompetence, or both?
 
Wollery,

- You guys haven't let me use my form of debate.

- Give me one friendly "spokesperson," or "gatekeeper," who will cooperate with me as I try to keep narrowing our focus. I will cooperate with your spokesperson as he or she tries to narrow their own choice of focus.
- I think those are the keys to effective debate. Eventually, we'll either resolve a basic disagreement, or precisely identify a basic disagreement for which neither of us has anything more to say, and can -- momentarily at least -- agree to disagree.
- Then, we can go on to the next basic disagreement.
- Eventually, we'll get to a point where neither of us has much more to say and any heretofore neutral members of an audience can judge for themselves as to who has the best argument.

- For the moment, I'm focusing on the possibility that the carbon dating sample involved a patch.

--- Jabba

I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone debate as you have Jabba. You arguments aren't very convincing either.
 
Last edited:
Wollery,

- You guys haven't let me use my form of debate.

- Give me one friendly "spokesperson," or "gatekeeper," who will cooperate with me as I try to keep narrowing our focus. I will cooperate with your spokesperson as he or she tries to narrow their own choice of focus.
- I think those are the keys to effective debate. Eventually, we'll either resolve a basic disagreement, or precisely identify a basic disagreement for which neither of us has anything more to say, and can -- momentarily at least -- agree to disagree.
- Then, we can go on to the next basic disagreement.
- Eventually, we'll get to a point where neither of us has much more to say and any heretofore neutral members of an audience can judge for themselves as to who has the best argument.

- For the moment, I'm focusing on the possibility that the carbon dating sample involved a patch.

--- Jabba

What makes you think you get a gatekeeper? Nobody else around here seems to need one.

You keep saying you're focusing on the possibility of a patch. Where? When? How? You don't appear to be doing any research in that direction.
 
Frankly I can't think of a less effective form of debate than the one that Jabba seems to be attempting.


Wollery,

- You guys haven't let me use my form of debate.


This looks like a refutation rebuttal of wollery's observation and it seems that you are, in fact, claiming that there is actually a less effective form of debate.

Go ahead, Jabba.

Make our day.


- Give me one friendly "spokesperson," or "gatekeeper," who will cooperate with me as I try to keep narrowing our focus. I will cooperate with your spokesperson as he or she tries to narrow their own choice of focus.


Are you aware on any level that the previous twenty explanations that you've been given for the total unacceptibility of this ridiculous proposal remain unrebutted unrefuted?


- I think those are the keys to effective debate. Eventually, we'll either resolve a basic disagreement, or precisely identify a basic disagreement for which neither of us has anything more to say, and can -- momentarily at least -- agree to disagree.


How does your inability to remember what you've already said (or not said) fit into this genius-wrought plan?

What about the fact that everyone else already agrees to agree that you have no idea what you're talking about?


- Then, we can go on to the next basic disagreement.


You haven't even begun to deal with the first one yet. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.


- Eventually, we'll get to a point where neither of us has much more to say and any heretofore neutral members of an audience can judge for themselves as to who has the best argument.


We reached that point months ago.

Any number of us here, myself included, had no opinion one way or the other about the shroud until we read this thread, and now, having had the opportunity to review the evidence the overwhelming consensus is "fake!"


DeadHorse.gif



- For the moment, I'm focusing on the possibility that the carbon dating sample involved a patch.

--- Jabba


<borrows sleepy_lioness' gun>
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom