Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Agatha]

Belz,
Obviously, you don't want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the attempt to "blind" was unsuccessful (ineffective) -- which is all I was trying to say.
--- Jabba

Well, yes, that's exactly what we want you to either substantiate or withdraw. Your claim is that everybody involved accepted the control samples were ineffective. Apart from quibbling about what you meant by 'ineffective' (which may not be what everybody involved in the sampling would mean by 'ineffective'), you have not presented any evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Do you think the 1st century Jesus, if he existed at all, would have had long flowing locks as depicted in mediaeval European art? Jews in 1st century Palestine, as far as we can tell from art on Roman friezes, from the Temple of Bel and from Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 1, would have had short hair.

LOL -- love your "would have had" ...

Obviously, long-haired beardos must have been completely impossible, notwithstanding the ease with which such men spontaneously appear in every human generation ...

Empirical analysis, obviously, concerns itself with particular observations ; not theoretical generalities.

 

[Akri]

Authenticity is irrelevant to this question.

The blood stains and the minute detail of forensically accurate anatomy (once the distorsions are accounted for and corrected), as well as the gaps at the sides of the head, torso, arms, and legs, lead to the conclusion that the linen Shroud was draped over the body more or less as depicted (with the error, already pointed out, of the top of the head).

How do they point to that conclusion? You've shown us a body with a cloth over it, but that doesn't mean an image imprinted on the cloth from the body would look like the Shroud image.

It's a statue.

There are probably better images of it in circulation -- this one doesn't exactly thrill me either.

So why did you use it as your evidence? Again, I'm pretty certain we can't determine from that picture if the statue is anatomically correct or not (though based on my own attempts to lay in the Shroud Position I'm going to say "not").

 

[AdMan]

No.

It's not their bizarre views on History that I'm recommending ...

And yet you keep citing a History Channel "documentary".

Rather than continuing to make people laugh, can you point us to a published peer-reviewed paper that contains the results of whatever the show is attempting to show?

 

[Agatha]

LOL -- love your "would have had" ...

Obviously, long-haired beardos must have been completely impossible, notwithstanding the ease with which such men spontaneously appear in every human generation ...

Empirical analysis, obviously, concerns itself with particular observations ; not theoretical generalities.

OK, change the "would have had" to "is far more likely to have had" if you insist. It's late afternoon here and I'm a-tripping on pain meds so may not have been as precise as you wished me to be.

Empirical analysis such as radiocarbon dating, for example?

If you want to claim that Jesus, if he existed at all, had long hair despite the cultural and historical evidence against that, go right ahead. But of itself, the hair on the depiction on the shroud is far more suggestive of a mediaeval high Gothic artist's representation of Jesus than an actual 1st century person.

 

[Akri]

Here's the History Channel episode JabbaPappa is referencing.



The part in question begins around 45 minutes in. I'm watching it now, and wondering why they aren't testing their idea by just painting their Jesus head statue and putting a cloth over it.

 

[Olowkow]

This is how to make a shroud in your kitchen.Check video at 2:00.

Vacuum Forming with your Kitchen Oven and Vacuum Cleaner

 

[AdMan]

Here's the History Channel episode JabbaPappa is referencing.



The part in question begins around 45 minutes in. I'm watching it now, and wondering why they aren't testing their idea by just painting their Jesus head statue and putting a cloth over it.

Because this isn't a serious documentary and it's not serious research. It's entertainment, like virtually all programming on the History Channel.

Which is why it's so laughable that JabbaPapa keeps referencing it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Obviously, long-haired beardos must have been completely impossible, notwithstanding the ease with which such men spontaneously appear in every human generation ...

It's certainly possible, although it would be a little strange of Paul to later tell people that it's dishonourable for men to have long hair.

 

[Akri]

Because this isn't a serious documentary and it's not serious research. It's entertainment.

Which is why it's so laughable that JabbaPappa keeps referencing it.

Agreed.

 

[Olowkow]

The part in question begins around 45 minutes in. I'm watching it now, and wondering why they aren't testing their idea by just painting their Jesus head statue and putting a cloth over it.

Thanks. Why indeed? And what is that "charging up with UV" all about? I didn't quite get that technique. It sounds sciency though.

 

[Akri]

Thanks. Why indeed? And what is that "charging up with UV" all about? I didn't quite get that technique. It sounds sciency though.

Indeed. Did you see all those glowy bits?

 

[Belz...]

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

No, I don't think I will do your work for yuo. Link, please.

ETA: By the way:

Person 1: Faith healing works !
Person 2: No, it doesn't. Show me evidence that it does. Many tests have been made in the past, all negative.
Person 1: I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

 

[Olowkow]

Indeed. Did you see all those glowy bits?

I listened again. I had missed the part where he said the face was "coated with a fluorescent paint".

 

[Belz...]

The paper towel around one's head experiment cited by another poster is just one example you can do yourself. Wrap it tight or loose, the image of the ears will spread out like wings from both sides of the front of your face. That is not the image seen on the shroud, which looks like a passport photograph.

Maybe that's how they made travel documents, back then.

 

[Belz...]

The typical human body is not "cylindrical" ...

And there is some obvious image distortion on the image -- as would be obvious if some people were to stop and think about the internal incoherence of their ideas that the arms seem warped, and these suggestions that the image isn't.

Oh, by all means, detail those distortions.

Your quibbles about blood flow appear to be completely irrelevant, as you cannot have any idea whatsoever about the positions that the corpse may have been in, nor the patterns of blood stains on the fabric that would emerge, prior to whatever imprint occurred onto the linen.

What's irrelevant is that until ANYONE manages to disprove the C14 findings, this cloth CANNOT be the burial cloth of Jesus anyway.

 

[Belz...]

JP,

- When I first logged on here, I figure I was about 90% convinced that the Shroud was authentic. Until you logged on, my conviction had slipped to about 80%. Now, I figure it's about 85%...

Let me get this straight. Your confidence has been altered by the mere presence of a like-minded poster ?

Me, I am about 100% convinced that it's a fake, until proven otherwise. Given the shroudies' behaviour, I feel quite safe in my certainty.

 

[Belz...]

Belz,
- I can't PROVE anything. Though, I think that I can substantiate a lot. Though at this point, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to substantiate.

Anything would be a good start, but I would suggest you focus on the C14.

Obviously, you don't want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the attempt to "blind" was unsuccessful (ineffective)

Obviously ? Actually that's EXACTLY what I'm asking you to show, minus the "blind" part.

 

[zooterkin]

2) Those with a deep-set belief that it is a mediaeval forgery tend to refuse any and all contrary evidence in an irrational manner

---

Can you identify any of those here?

I doubt it. On the other hand, there are quite a few who have looked at the ¹⁴C dating, and how accurate that is, and concluded that the 14th century date is is pretty solid, especially when taken with the contemporary reports of a forgery. They have also looked at the extremely dubious evidence produced by those in the first group you mentioned, who desperately want the shroud to be genuine.

 

[Belz...]

LOL -- love your "would have had" ...

Obviously, long-haired beardos must have been completely impossible, notwithstanding the ease with which such men spontaneously appear in every human generation ...

Empirical analysis, obviously, concerns itself with particular observations ; not theoretical generalities.

Nobody is saying it's impossible. It's just more evidence against the 1st century date. Not that it matters since, as you know, we've actually dated the cloth.