Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[pakeha]

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 no sense whatsover, Jabba.
Have you forgotten the 2002 restoration?
Have you forgotten what the pro-authenticity proponents' own expert told you?

Remember. 'Invisible' is a trade term, not a reality.

 

[David Mo]

The good pipe tale and Jabba.

What are you intending by discussing with Jabba? It is absolutely useless! Jabba is the perfect sindonist: he doesn’t respect the most elementary norms of dialectical logic. He never recognizes when he arrives at a dead end. He says something as “I go to study this…”, “I go to ask someone…” and so, and he disappears for a month or two. Then he suddenly returns, but not with new arguments: he starts again with the old failed arguments!

We have a child’s joke called “The good pipe tale” in Spain. A child says to another: “Do you want me to tell you the good pipe tale”. “Yes”, the second child answers. “I haven’t asked you to say “yes”, I have asked you if you want me to tell you the good pipe tale”. “Oh, well… no”. “I haven’t asked you to say “Oh, well…no”; I asked you if you want me to tell you de good pipe tale”. “Let me alone, with this stupid tale!”. “I haven’t asked you to say “Let me alone with this stupid tale!”; I asked you if…” And so on till infinite.

Well, Jabba is playing with you the good pipe tale. I don’t know if he has a problem with temporal lobe or if he is taking you for a ride. It doesn’t matter. The result is the same. You can continue ad infinitum with Jabba. It is the neverending story.

 

[Belz...]

Ward,

- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."

Yeah, it depends on your wish to see the shroud as genuine.

 

[pakeha]

What are you intending by discussing with Jabba? It is absolutely useless! ... I don’t know if he has a problem with temporal lobe or if he is taking you for a ride. It doesn’t matter. The result is the same. You can continue ad infinitum with Jabba. It is the neverending story.

Of course you're right.
Still, threads like this are great learning opportunities, thanks to the many and diverse experts who post here and in similar threads.

One point worth considering is that Jabba is the only Shroudie with the cojones strength of will to post here. Others have come and gone after two or three posts, haven't they?

 

[catsmate]

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

That, in my opinion, is why Jabba wishes to use his method.

- 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

No. Stop wasting our time, give your answers and don't expect us to wade through reams of crap to find these supposed "answers".

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.

Your "method" is intended to prevent proper examination of the issues.

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

Already debunked nonsense.

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.

He's desperate. So he returns to the same crap all over again.

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?

Well Jabba needs something to maintain his belief in the shroud.

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.

The shroud has been extensively photographed, including under non visible spectrum illumination. The idea of a patch is utter crap.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Jabba's also started parroting the shroudie line that LANL was involved in "validating" their magic cloth, rather than a few believers who worked there.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba's also started parroting the shroudie line that LANL was involved in "validating" their magic cloth, rather than a few believers who worked there.

Yeah, I picked up on that, too. Another example of the blatant dishonesty.

I know it has been asked about and pointed out perhaps a thousand times before, but it really boggles me. I can understand cognitive dissonance and choosing to believe and choosing not to accept facts in order to maintain that belief, but how can someone claim superiority of belief and knowledge when they have to be so obviously deceitful about it?

 

[IanS]

What are you intending by discussing with Jabba? It is absolutely useless! Jabba is the perfect sindonist: he doesn’t respect the most elementary norms of dialectical logic. He never recognizes when he arrives at a dead end. He says something as “I go to study this…”, “I go to ask someone…” and so, and he disappears for a month or two. Then he suddenly returns, but not with new arguments: he starts again with the old failed arguments!

We have a child’s joke called “The good pipe tale” in Spain. A child says to another: “Do you want me to tell you the good pipe tale”. “Yes”, the second child answers. “I haven’t asked you to say “yes”, I have asked you if you want me to tell you the good pipe tale”. “Oh, well… no”. “I haven’t asked you to say “Oh, well…no”; I asked you if you want me to tell you de good pipe tale”. “Let me alone, with this stupid tale!”. “I haven’t asked you to say “Let me alone with this stupid tale!”; I asked you if…” And so on till infinite.

Well, Jabba is playing with you the good pipe tale. I don’t know if he has a problem with temporal lobe or if he is taking you for a ride. It doesn’t matter. The result is the same. You can continue ad infinitum with Jabba. It is the neverending story.

Well, that also seems to be true of all religious fanatics who post on forums like this.

None of them have credible arguments for claims about divine creation and denial of evolution, belief in miracles, or coded numbers in holy books etc.

But unless people oppose fraudulent and ignorant religious claims of that sort, then the claims are likely to act as recruitment amongst a more general and wider public who may not realise why the claims are untrue (actually the claims are mostly more than merely “untrue”, they are generally deliberately dishonest and a quite blatant form of preaching to promote support of their religion … as was shown in the Dover trial).

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by David Mo
What are you intending by discussing with Jabba? It is absolutely useless!

It sure seems pointless at times to discuss these things when the "protagonist", shall we say, is immune to reasoned argument. I agree with those who find value in what the lurker can learn from the expert information that becomes a part of such threads. It is also important, as was mentioned, that potential believers in authenticity be exposed to the truth so that they can make up their own minds.

What often happens in this, let's call it a "quasi troll thread", type of discussion is that tempers rage and eventually one side calls the other a Nazi or some other insult and winds up getting banned. This thread has gone on for an unusually long time without this kind of behavior, despite what the shroudists seem to see. These threads have in common that the issue being debated is trivially true to one side, in this case the C14 reliability.

I recall, when I first joined JREF, the Kleinman thread!! It was amazing, it was hugely educational, with people like DrAdequate spouting his expertise in many areas. It didn't matter that the opposing side was frankly ◊◊◊◊◊◊* nuts.

Then the "room temperature superconductivity" thread. I learned an enormous amount, despite name calling on one side, and accusations of dementia on the other. Again, trivial points in physics that just went on and on forever, but resulted in a large scattering of side issues with lots of expert information.

ETA: Kleinman was banned, so I can call him "nuts". Unfortunately DrA was also later banned. Marduk was another good one, who just couldn't hold his rage. In a way, I can't blame him.

 

[David Mo]

Jabba's dance.

Yes, I agree with us, Pakeha, Ian and Olowkow. There are two good reasons for discussing with a closed mind person.
a) It is useful because we learn when good arguments are contributed by experts on the subject.
b) It is useful because undecided people can learn.

But these reasons are no more valid in this particular case. Jabba is repeating his singsong for a long time. He is applying the classic troll tactic of “broken record”. Consciously or not, it doesn’t matter. Why do you play his game? I’m sure Jabba is delighted with himself. He is the king of the dance even if it is a tasteless dance.

 

[pakeha]

Ah, David.
I see you've never experienced a discussion with DOC or Kumar.
A discussion like this is really just in the stages of deciding what brand of popcorn (or pipas) to munch on.
Barely over a year, this one has lasted.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts

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

Ward,
- Do you basically agree with your colleagues?
--- Jabba

 

[Susheel]

Ward,
- Do you basically agree with your colleagues?
--- Jabba

Hmm...I think Ward will agree that his study of the evidence presented leads him to the conclusion that the shroud is a medieval artifact. This also happens to be the same thing that "his colleagues" have also concluded through a similar study of the evidence.

Unlike you, he hasn't indulged in the intellectual equivalent of sticking his finger in his ears shouting "la...la...la...la..." while people reason with him.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ward,
- Do you basically agree with your colleagues?
--- Jabba

Rich:

Are you actually pretending to claim that there was, in fact, some sort of "patch" on the area of the medieval artifact that was tested; a patch that could not be detected in any way by people who have actually examined the cloth in person; but a patch that can be detected by people who have not actually examined the cloth?

I, for one, would very much appreciate it if you would step beyond innuendo and produce something substantive.

Do you think there is a "patch" on the tested area? Yes, or no?

 

[Akhenaten]

Why do you play his game? I’m sure Jabba is delighted with himself. He is the king of the dance even if it is a tasteless dance.

No, Jabba is not the king of the dance.

His arguments fulfil no other purpose than to suggest a slight variation on steps that were being performed here many years before his arrival and which will continue for even longer after his inevitable departure.

And it's far from tasteless.

Clearly you have yet to sample the delights of catsmate's delicious muffins.


Here's a humble cookie to tide you over.

​

 

[Akhenaten]

Ward,
- Do you basically agree with your colleagues?
--- Jabba

Colleagues?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

Rich:

Are you actually pretending to claim that there was, in fact, some sort of "patch" on the area of the medieval artifact that was tested; a patch that could not be detected in any way by people who have actually examined the cloth in person; but a patch that can be detected by people who have not actually examined the cloth?

I, for one, would very much appreciate it if you would step beyond innuendo and produce something substantive.

Do you think there is a "patch" on the tested area? Yes, or no?

Slowvehicle,
- The word "patch" is sort of problematic for me. For the moment, I do think that there had been some "patching" done on the tested area. Could "patching" cause, or even contribute significantly, to such a shift in date? Doesn't seem likely to me, but so far I can't really dismiss the possibility.
--- Rich

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- The word "patch" is sort of problematic for me. For the moment, I do think that there had been some "patching" done on the tested area. Could "patching" cause, or even contribute significantly, to such a shift in date? Doesn't seem likely to me, but so far I can't really dismiss the possibility.
--- Rich

Oh, Rich...

What, in your mind, is the difference between a "patch" and "some patching"?

Whichever you want to say it must have been, why is the "patch" or the "patching", imperceptible to those who have, with permission, actually handled the cloth, looked at both sides of the cloth, examined the cloth in different light; while being perceptible to those who have not had access? Are you claiming conspiracy, or incompetence?

Whichever it is, consider how much "patching" and of what character of material, would be needed to distort the actual date of the medieval artifact by 11 centuries. You quickly get to the point that there would be more "patch", or "patching", than original cloth.

So, again, I ask for a direct, non-evasive answer, respectfully:
Are you claiming that there is undetectable "patching" in the cloth, to the extent that the ¹⁴C date is off by 1100 years? Answer me that, then we can talk about the nature of the "patching".

ETA: if a "patch" or "patching" does not "seem likely" to you, why is that not enough to dismiss it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- The word "patch" is sort of problematic for me.

Because it's not ambiguous enough for you?

For the moment, I do think that there had been some "patching" done on the tested area.

No you don't.

You want that to be the case despite a complete lack of supporting evidence.

Whole different thing to "thinking" it.

Could "patching" cause, or even contribute significantly, to such a shift in date? Doesn't seem likely to me, but so far I can't really dismiss the possibility.
--- Rich

Never was there a clearer example of an individual's need to believe in a fairytale completely eradicating his ability to think critically about something.

You are, and forever will be, totally unable to carry out objective research into the shroud of Turin.

 

[Humots]

Slowvehicle,
- The word "patch" is sort of problematic for me. For the moment, I do think that there had been some "patching" done on the tested area. Could "patching" cause, or even contribute significantly, to such a shift in date? Doesn't seem likely to me, but so far I can't really dismiss the possibility.
--- Rich

Jabba: what on God's green earth is the difference between patching and patch?

I think some kind of record has just been set.