Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[JabbaPapa]

Is this what you were originally referring to as the testing done via caramelisation?

No.

 

[tsig]

It doesn't ???

So you think snide ad hominems constitute an "argument" ???



You know -- when I SAY that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position, I actually MEAN that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position.

Some members in this forum might find it entertaining for their own reasons to throw a barrage of weighted, leading questions at me, and then pretend that whatever responses are given to explain the objections that some people are putting forward against the 14th century dating are mysteriously some sort of "proof" that I believe those things, and then proceed to deduce that they are therefore fully authorised to post vilifications of my character as a result of these FAULTY inferences that they've made -- well then NO, sorry, that does NOT provide me with a positive impression of their analytical methodology.

Particularly when they pretend this to be a product of scientific reason.

Particularly when they COMPLETELY refrain from addressing any of the papers that they have so unhelpfully demanded of me, unhelpfully AKA they weren't actually even interested in reading them in the first place, as they had obviously made up their minds on the questions already.

And when I posted "the contents found at XXX are NOT scientific", their reaction to this is "ooooh loook at the moron who believes XXX" --- notwithstanding that I explicitly denounced it as unscientific.

No -- these sorts of juvenile antics do NOT induce respect.

You have to show some to get some.

 

[JabbaPapa]

I don't think anyone here believes that for a second, not even you.

Thank you for calling me a liar.

 

[tsig]

Thank you for calling me a liar.

Your words speak for themselves.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Well, please tell us what it is, then, since you've done what no one else has done so far, which is discount that hypothesis.

Why expect me to post papers, and then completely refrain from reading them ?

Your attempt to pat each other on the back is noted, but it does not further this discussion.

Your attempt to attribute views to me that are foreign to my understanding is also noted.

 

[John Jones]

It doesn't ???

So you think snide ad hominems constitute an "argument" ???



You know -- when I SAY that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position, I actually MEAN that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position.

Some members in this forum might find it entertaining for their own reasons to throw a barrage of weighted, leading questions at me, and then pretend that whatever responses are given to explain the objections that some people are putting forward against the 14th century dating are mysteriously some sort of "proof" that I believe those things, and then proceed to deduce that they are therefore fully authorised to post vilifications of my character as a result of these FAULTY inferences that they've made -- well then NO, sorry, that does NOT provide me with a positive impression of their analytical methodology.

Particularly when they pretend this to be a product of scientific reason.

Particularly when they COMPLETELY refrain from addressing any of the papers that they have so unhelpfully demanded of me, unhelpfully AKA they weren't actually even interested in reading them in the first place, as they had obviously made up their minds on the questions already.

And when I posted "the contents found at XXX are NOT scientific", their reaction to this is "ooooh loook at the moron who believes XXX" --- notwithstanding that I explicitly denounced it as unscientific.

No -- these sorts of juvenile antics do NOT induce respect.

Is someone here asking for your respect?

There is a reason what you're doing is called JAQing off. Don't cite History Channel rubbish if you don't want to be held accountable for doing so.

 

[John Jones]

Why expect me to post papers, and then completely refrain from reading them ?
.

Has this happened?

 

[Akri]

you're FALSELY assuming that I myself am a firm believer in 1st century AD Jerusalem origin

There's a reason for that assumption: your arguments are arguments used by those who believe the Shroud to be the miraculous burial shroud of Christ. The origin of most, if not all, of those arguments is with believers trying to discredit the medieval dating (Rogers, for instance, was part of a pro-Shroud group and had a vested interest in getting a 1st century date when he performed his tests).

If you're really not biased toward a particular response I'd recommend calming down your posts a bit. If you think someone is trolling or attacking you then report them, but don't respond in kind. The calmer your posts are, the less people will continue to mistake you for a Believer.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Ironic how the education of numerous posters who have commented on the process of C14 dating and the validity of the shroud samples counts as a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it?

Good GRIEF could you at least TRY and read what I actually post, instead of making up my mind for me that I believe Heavens know which RUBBISH having nothing to do with me ?

I HAVE NOT CONTESTED THE PROCESS OF THE C14 DATING.

No -- what I'm referring to as a knee-jerk reaction is precisely the sort of reaction that you are displaying -- ANY questioning of the attribution of a 14th century dating to the Shroud is clearly viewed by you as some kind of full embrace of every single lunatic theory about the Shroud of Turin.

Actually, no, it's perfectly sound. That which is asserted without evidence is arbitrary, and has no epistemological validity

Pretty much all of your "understanding" of my position then.

OK glad that's sorted.

You are starting with the conclusion that the shroud is real

Absolute RUBBISH.

, and are willing to throw out anything that gets in the way of that belief, even rationality. That is more or less the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Rubbish, Rubbish, and more Rubbish.

Says the guy who comes in here petulantly demanding to be taken seriously

You didn't even get that bit right, did you...

 

[JabbaPapa]

arrogantly assuming that we're all morons that will bow to your superior intellect

don't attribute your own faults on me, thanks

 

[JabbaPapa]

Sweet zombie Jesus! You appear pathologically allergic to the concept of context!! The 1,300 year error is the amount of error required to make Jabba's arguments have any validity. The fact that you missed the single largest issue in the bloody thread more or less tanks your credibility, in my opinion at least!

Why do you assume that I have to take some sort of "side" either for or against Jabba ???

I have very little interest in your apparently long-drawn out trench warfare with that member.

I have NO interest in a C¹⁴ pseudo-debate involving weird conspiracy theories, that is likely to be completely irrelevant to any evidence-based sources of doubt towards the 14th century attribution.

 

[Acleron]

... which looks not even **remotely** like the Shroud of Turin.

That was kind of the point.

You DO realise that a post such as yours is colloquially referred to as "internet trolling", right ?

More like exasperation.

If you would read the whole thread you would a) not produce old fallacies that have already been beaten to death and b) learn quite a lot from the contributors who are experts in their own fields.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The link doesn't open.

Works at this end.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Ido you agree that the C14 testing was very reliable ?

I've said so, plainly and clearly, about half a dozen times.

I also pointed out in my first post that my name "JabbaPapa" was liable to cause some degree of confusion -- well, looks like I underestimated how much so

 

[JabbaPapa]

If you agree that it's unscientific, then it's probably not the best idea to cite it in a scientific discussion.

It's hardly my fault that the 3D model of the Shroud Man that I was interested in, in relation to questions about image distortion, was published there, instead of somewhere less blatantly disrespectable instead -- 80-90% of everything else in that programme is unsubstantiated guesswork.

I view that 3D image by the digital artist as a technician's study of the image, not as a scientist's, nor a historian's.

 

[FergusM1970]

ANY questioning of the attribution of a 14th century dating to the Shroud is clearly viewed by you as some kind of full embrace of every single lunatic theory about the Shroud of Turin.

Yes. That's because we have the C14 dating. Only a fool could think that it isn't medieval.

 

[FergusM1970]

any evidence-based sources of doubt towards the 14th century attribution.

There aren't any. Face facts; it has been dated and it is medieval. Case closed.

 

[Akri]

I'm beginning to think JabbaPappa has me on ignore...

 

[JabbaPapa]

What do you mean, Jabbapapa?
Do you have some reason to not think Mme Flury Lemburg competent in her field?

Having spent some time in the outskirts of the specialist fashion, costume, and fabric University milieu, I have acquired the assumption that it is safer to assume that a specialist working in that field is of dubious competence.

In 90% of cases, the assumption will be accurate.

90%+ of those with ANY degree of skill in the discipline go and work in cinema or TV costume departments, or with the Fashion houses.

You know -- where they have something called money to pay people with.

The research discipline is plagued with microscopic funding, an almost complete lack of facilities, petty in-fighting, and petty jealousies.

In Italy, also, the research positions are provided almost exclusively through nepotism.

 

[John Jones]

It's hardly my fault that the 3D model of the Shroud Man that I was interested in, in relation to questions about image distortion, was published there, instead of somewhere less blatantly disrespectable instead -- 80-90% of everything else in that programme is unsubstantiated guesswork.

.

It's your fault for citing it.