Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
Oh, Rich...

What, in your mind, is the difference between a "patch" and "some patching"?...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- One step at a time.
- "Patching" could simply be 'sewing' a tear back together. A "patch" sort of implies -- at least to me -- a replacement piece of material (of unknown size).
- I'll try to get to your other questions separately.
--- Rich
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- One step at a time.
- "Patching" could simply be 'sewing' a tear back together.
Click to expand...


Or embroidering a lovely "JC" monogram, or perhaps affixing an appliqué (a little bunny in remembrance of the real meaning of Easter would be nice)? How about sewing on a button or maybe a "Property of Jesus" name tag?

Why limit yourself, Jabba, when obviously "patching" can mean whatever you want it to mean? Let yourself go!
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- One step at a time.
- "Patching" could simply be 'sewing' a tear back together. A "patch" sort of implies -- at least to me -- a replacement piece of material (of unknown size).
- I'll try to get to your other questions separately.
--- Rich
Click to expand...

Rich:

Do you, personally, sew? I do--I make many of my partner's clothes. I can state from experience that "sewing a tear back together" ("darning") is visible. It can always be seen. There is no such repair, be it a "patch", "some patching", a reweave, darning, or any other sort, in the area that was tested.

Now here is the reason for my question. if there were, in fact, a thread sewing the sides of a tear together (that was not perceived by any of the experts who physically examined the cloth, but is only alluded to by those who have not), how much thread would there have to be to make a 1100-year difference in the date?
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...

Then why in the name of Sweet Radioactive Baby Jesus do you keep coming back to it?

Could fairies have made the cloth magically appear young? Doesn't seem likely, but I can't dismiss the possibility.

Could Jesus have created the improbable marks by stretching his body like Mr Fantastic? Doesn't seem likely, but I can't dismiss the possibility.

Could the shroud be exerting powerful mind control over anyone who tests it, so that they give their perception is distorted and they continually report that it's a fake? Doesn't seem likely, but I can't dismiss the possibility.

Do you see what I'm saying? There is no reason at all to suppose something so ridiculous and fantastic, you say you don't think it at all likely, but you refuse to dismiss it. But we know why that is, don't we? It's because you want it to be true. Just give it up.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- One step at a time.
- "Patching" could simply be 'sewing' a tear back together. A "patch" sort of implies -- at least to me -- a replacement piece of material (of unknown size).
- I'll try to get to your other questions separately.
--- Rich
Click to expand...
- That's not quite accurate...
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
- This acknowledgment requires some more thinking on my part. I'll be back.
--- Jabba
 
Slowvehicle said:
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?
Click to expand...

He's been wont to admit it, but he has been backing himself into a conspiracy corner. That is the only way any of his supposed objections have any traction at all.
 
You are doing this the wrong way round, Jabba. You are starting by hypothesising a 1st century date, and are now looking for evidence to support it.

What you should be doing is looking at the evidence, then forming the hypothesis which has to take account of all of the evidence that you already have.

Such evidence would include
1. the appearance of the shroud:
(a) that the patches which are there are obvious to the naked eye
(b) that so called 'invisible' patches are visible on the reverse of the fabric
(c) that the representation of the figure is anatomically impossible*
(d) that the representation of the figure matches the concept of Jesus in mediaeval art and looks European
(e) that Jesus, if he had existed, would have had the appearance of a 1st century Middle Eastern Jew
(f) the weave of the cloth is known to have existed in mediaeval times, but has never been seen in cloth from the 1st century
(g) The shroud does not match what is known about burial practices in 1st century Palestine

2. The radiocarbon dating results:
(a) three independent laboratories date the shroud to between 1290 to 1360
(b) the strip of shroud tested was taken from an area free of patches, repairs or charring
(c) the radiocarbon dating process was extremely well controlled by people with an interest in showing a 1st century date

3. The historical records suggest a mediaeval date:
(a) No records mention the shroud prior to the mid 14th century
(b) the d'Arcis letter talks of the shroud as a forgery made around 1354
(c) the 14th century saw an explosion of forged Christian relics, including several supposed shrouds of Jesus

and so on, I could add more to the list about mediaeval pigments for example. I arranged those with letters and numbers as I recognise you prefer such lists rather than blocks of text.

Now, imagine for a moment that you have no preconceived idea of the date of the shroud, and you are presented with the evidence above.

Would you hypothesise a 1st century or a 14th century date?

Which date matches all the evidence that you have?

*have you done the experiment of lying flat on the floor and clasping your hands yet? As I'm a wheelchair user and getting on to and up off the floor would require help, I got one of my sons to perform the experiment. If I can do this to satisfy my curiosity about something in which I have no emotional investment, then you can surely take 30 seconds to lie on the floor or ask someone else to do so, given your level of emotional investment in the shroud.
 
Last edited:
See, David?
I reckon we have a real gem here.

Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi, Jabba! Why do you think there was patching on the tested area?
 
Jabba said:
- That's not quite accurate...
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
- This acknowledgment requires some more thinking on my part. I'll be back.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Rich:

I am pursuing this absurd line of thought for one reason, and for one reason only.

It seems to me that the only hint of the supposition of the possibility of "evidence" for a "patch" or "some patching", or "darning" or a "repair", or "a replacement piece of material (of unknown size)", is that you, personally, do not like the 14C dating results because you, personally, want the medieval artifact in question to be the True ShroudTM.

Let me say that a different way: no "patch", or "patching", or "darning", or "repair", or "replacement piece of material (of unknown size)" has ever been spotted, described, or alluded to by any of the experts who have, in fact, had access to the cloth. No one who has handled the cloth, seen both sides of the cloth, examined the cloth in different light, or performed any of a number of other such analyses of the cloth has discovered any hont of any such.

You are starting from your desired conclusion--the cloth must be authentic--and attempting to find (or invent) any scintilla of evidence that can be manipulated into seeming to point toward your conclusion. That isn't how science works. If you were serious, you would start with the evidence: 14C dating, anatomical impossibilities*, artistic problems, disagreements with scripture, historical problems, and so on. Your investigation should then be focused on developing a hypothesis that accounts for all of the evidence. All of the evidence.

Instead, you keep picking the bullet hole you like, then trying to draw a target around it.

If you want to be taken seriously, behave in a serious manner.

It would "make sense" to pursue a "replacement piece of material (of unknown size)" if (and only if) there were the slightest hint of the presence of such. Your perfervid desire to have the cloth be AuthenticTM does not constitute such a hint.

*Did you ever even do yourself the favor of lying supine and attepting to assume the "Shroud SlouchTM" ? Why not?

ETA: Kudos to Agatha, who got there first...
 
Last edited:
Thanks all!

As a (primarily) lurker, just wanted to say how much I've learned on this thread. Since it's started, I've gone from 'well, it's probably a mid 1300's fake but more testing is necessary' at the beginning to 'I'm about as sure as I am of anything that the shroud is a medieval artifact'.

I've long ago given up reading Jabba's posts (awhile back I put him on ignore just so I can more easily read the posts by others that have actual content in them).

I can always learn something at JREF if I pay attention, and this post is no different.

<back to lurking>
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...



I asked you the following question about 20 times before (around 50 to 100 pages back), but -

- the shroud is actually covered in patches. They are the whopping great triangular things sewn onto the shroud after the fire in 1532.

Those same patches were apparently repaired again in 1694 and in 1868. But they remain so obvious that anyone can spot them from literally 100 meters away.

Question - why would the church &/or owners of the shroud, go to the apparently impossible trouble of making an “invisible” repair to a completely insignificant corner of the cloth well away from the image (an area which just by coincidence turned out to be the C14 sample area!), when as late as 1868 they could apparently do nothing to improve the very obvious and crude patches that are right next to the image itself?
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
I asked you the following question about 20 times before (around 50 to 100 pages back), but -

- the shroud is actually covered in patches. They are the whopping great triangular things sewn onto the shroud after the fire in 1532.

Those same patches were apparently repaired again in 1694 and in 1868. But they remain so obvious that anyone can spot them from literally 100 meters away.

Question - why would the church &/or owners of the shroud, go to the apparently impossible trouble of making an “invisible” repair to a completely insignificant corner of the cloth well away from the image (an area which just by coincidence turned out to be the C14 sample area!), when as late as 1868 they could apparently do nothing to improve the very obvious and crude patches that are right next to the image itself?
Click to expand...

It's all part of the conspiracy!!!!

Actually, that's not necessarily true. That one can be explained by incompetence.
 
pgwenthold said:
It's all part of the conspiracy!!!!

Actually, that's not necessarily true. That one can be explained by incompetence.
Click to expand...



Perhaps incompetence that they were unable to make a better job of the obvious and known patches.

But fantastic and quite unbelievable "competence" required to make a literally invisible patch somewhere else ;).
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...

You demonstrably don't know enough about C14 dating for your opinion to matter. Uninformed opinions are irrelevant.

Do the math. Calculate how much "patch" there'd have to be to result in sufficient error to make you correct. Show us the process and the results. Until then, every time you blather on about your opinions you're talking nonsense.

There's no evidence for a patch. After a year, you should have been able to come up with something--and you haven't. So it doesn't exist. Don't like it? Provide evidence for a patch. YOU are proposing something exists--YOU get to prove it.
 
Jabba said:
- That's not quite accurate...
- I think that my main problem with "patch" is that in regard to the Shroud, I've been assuming a replacement piece of material (of unknown size). Such an assumption makes sense, in a sense, in that just 'sewing' up a tear shouldn't have much effect on the dating.
- This acknowledgment requires some more thinking on my part. I'll be back.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try actually learning how C14 dating works? Or how sewing works, since that's a major part of your argument right now? Or how human anatomy works (did you ever do the test of trying to lay flat on the ground with yours hands clasped in front of you)? Or you could try learning what happens when a 3d shape is flattened (draw a smiley face on a ball, wrap the ball in cloth/paper so that the ink gets on it, then lay the cloth/paper flat)?

But yes, more thinking is definitely a good plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom