Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2012
- Messages
- 745
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
.Belz...
Fiend God
Belz...
Fiend God
With good reason, Jabba. Your form of debate is called "conclusion by fiat".
People in this thread have cooperated with you quite a bit. Much more so than you deserved, in fact, but you keep ignoring them and playing the waiting game.
Or we'll conclusively show that the shroud is a medieval fake and you'll be left with nothing. Oh, wait. That's already the case.
And round and round we go !
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Jabba, why are you returning to already refuted ideas?
Have you forgotten about the 2002 restoration?
Do you really for one minute imagine Mme Mechthild Flury-Lemburg nd her team didn't thoroughly examine th reverse of the cloth?
Or are you going for the conspiracy idea with the 'switcheroo' idea.
Jabba, it's not about agreeing to disagree here. It's not about having the 'best' argument.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Why?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Oh, Rich...
Forget about "gatekeepers", or "referees". Forget about trying to determine how reality's disagreements with your special pleading will be micromanaged. Forget about "agreeing to disagree".
Please to explain what you mean by the highlighted.
1. Demonstrate your understanding of the math that would be needed to show how much "patch" material would be needed to make the cloth seem much younger (1100 years younger!) than the date you want it to be.
2. Demonstrate how there could have been a "patch" that no one who has actually handled the medieval artifact ever saw.
Or, simply show your cards and admit that you need the cloth to be "miraculously true", no matter what the physical reality is. Haven't you dragged this on long enough, and pointlessly enough?
…..wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
And the proper way to answer that answer is, "If Thibault could 'see' different types of fiber, then how could the patch possibly be invisible?".
Then, when you hear the reply, "I don't know, you'd have to ask him." Then the proper answer is, "How can you possibly believe in this based on the sef-contradictory testimony of one person? Doesn't your own common sense tell you that this is impossible?"
Ward
No. Tell us your answer
Because it's not suited to questions of fact.
The focus is as narrow as it needs to be: the C14 dating.
No. Jabba, questions of fact are never, ever resolved by deciding who has the best or most effective argument. You keep making this basic error. Effective debate is what a person needs when arguing for or against opinions - things like politics, art appreciation, literary criticisms. Factual investigations - things like how old is the TS - are resolved by scientific experiments (the C14 dating).
Really? Even though there is no visible patch in the sampled area, and you've been told, over and over again, that the invisible patch uses fibres from the existing cloth so would not alter the C14 results, and an invisible patch is visible on the reverse side anyway? Why in the name of all you hold dear would you go back to this long discredited and functionally impossible patch idea?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Ward,
- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."
- The one answer I got on the Porter blog actually alluded to the possibility I had alluded to previously. As I recall, neither those doing the dating nor those preparing for the dating, claimed to do the examinations (that Rogers, Raes, Brown and the Los Alamos National Laboratory did on the Shroud, or the sticky tapes) that turned up the evidence for patching. Also, Flury-Lemburg apparently didn't know about "reversing," and might have prematurely discounted the patch possibility due to there being no obvious evidence on the back of the Shroud.
- In other words, there appears to have been some patching going on that those really involved in the dating process didn't see because they didn't use the examination techniques necessary to see it.
- Does that make significant sense?
--- Jabba
It makes this type of sense:
You have no evidence against the C14 dating.
You continue to ignore all the evidence against patching.
You continue to ignore the fact that even if there were patching it would be with fibers from the same cloth.
You continue to use the discredited Rogers as support.
You continue to assume, without cause, that a textile expert would not notice a patch when physically inspecting the garment while a chemist, without textile expertise, would notice it from photographs.
Yes, in all seriousness, Jabba. You actually do make sense. We get exactly what you are feebly attempting to do.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
No, Rich, your hopes and fantasies and desperate need for the medieval artifact to be the True ShroudTM do not "make sense".
No one who has handled the cloth, touched the cloth, seen both sides of the cloth, or had any actual access to the cloth, has seen, recorded, or mentioned a "patch" in the area where the samples were taken. In fact, the people who handle the cloth, who cleaned the cloth, who selected the sample are, and who took the sample all deny that there was any "patch".
There are patches on the cloth, but they are simple, primitive, and visible.
There is no "patch" on the sampled area.
If there were an "invisible patch", it would have to have been made of threads from the actual cloth--which would validate, or support the medieval date demonstrated by three independent labs, not "refute" it.
If there were a "patch" on the tested area, how much fabric of what age would have to have been admixed with the cloth to alter the date in the way you want to claim it was altered?
Why do you give credit to the bootleg "tape samples", while at the same time pretending that correctly taken samples, with a documented chain of evidence, must be wrong; that the medieval date must be the result of dishonesty, or incompetence, or conspiracy, or some other skulduggery?
Seriously, Rich: if you are going to pin your hope of glory on a "patch", you need to be able to explain these things.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it does. Otherwise it would be observed.
Which still leaves you with the patch being comprised of threads from the original, and hence the dating must be correct.
Now, you are oscillating between invisible patches that nobody can detect (how is it that you can?) and detectable patches (how come the scientific team didn't)
Nope.
If the patch was visible, and nobody involved with the testing reports seeing it, that means they were all either incompetent or dishonest. Is that your opinion? That they were incompetent or liars?
Why would special tests be needed to detect a visible patch? It's visible. All you need to do is look at it to know it's there.
Last edited:
Gee--legitimate scientists weren't involved in a worthless pseudo-study where the conclusion was already known from the start. The SHOCK!Jabba said:
Jabba, reweaving techniques ARE NOT INVISIBLE. Any careful analysis of a patched cloth will show evidence of reweaving. And even if they were, they use fibers of material from the the cloth itself.
Since you obviously don't care what the experts say, why don't you explain to us the evidence for an invisible patch. Remember, this is only hurting your case--if there was a rewoven patch, it would be a composite sample of the entire shroud. Meaning that even if this line of reasoning was right (and it's not), it would be better support for our argument than we currently have.
Nope. It's merely more wishful thinking, ignoring facts, and pretending that just because you say it, it's therefore true.
Finally, I demand you provide a completely unbroken chain of custody for the tape samples. You raise objections to the C14 samples--the most well-documented such samples EVER TAKEN--because there are fragments of time when they're not on video. Please apply those standards consistantly. If there's any time at which the tape samples weren't under surveylance, we can dismiss them completely, regardless of the accuracy of the data's quality, yes?
Your "form of debate" is to dictates the terms of the debate to unfairly favor your side, while placing dishonest restrictions to your opponents. We've proven that.
Impossible. We've TRIED to limit the debate. We've tried to limit it to the C14 dating. Now you want to talk about blood, patches, and the style of debate. YOU changed the topic, not us.
I notice that the option "I admit I was wrong and accept the truth" isn't included here.
Here's a bit of friendly advice: a fair debate doesn't mean that both sides actually provide evidence of equal weight. It merely means both get the OPPORTUNITY to do so. You've had ample opportunity, for over a year. You have refused. This IS a fair debate. You're losing.
They can do that now. On our side we have the best C14 data ever taken, the anatomy evidence, the imaging data, the fact that the shroud is dramatically faided from the original version, etc. ad nauseum. On your side you've got equivocations, wanna-be lawyer jargon, and an abject refusal to be pinned down on any point whatever. No honest observer can possibly remain neutral at this point--nor can they side with you.
You've been through this before. It's a sad attempt to deny the obvious: the decision of where to take the 14C samples was very carefully discussed in advance to ensure it represented the rest of the shroud. Any patch would have been excluded. Even an invisible one would have been made from the remaining shroud material.
You promise new evidence but instead you are just recycling your old discredited posts over and over. If you have nothing new, just admit it and we can close this thread.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
- Status