Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akri]

dismissive cries of "read the thread"?

FWIW I didn't tell him to read the thread, I told him to do a search for "Rogers" when he presented that paper. And I didn't really expect him to read all of the posts, I just wanted him to see how many posts there were. A lot of ground has been covered in this thread, and I do think it's fair to ask that he use the search function, and then at least skim the results, before bringing up evidence/arguments/questions and expecting us to deal with them.

And I read the thread when it was over 100 pages long. It's honestly not that bad--a lot of it is fluff that can be skimmed over.

 

[Aepervius]

One of the papers I've linked to claims -- perfectly reasonably -- that the Shroud has been repaired on multiple occasions through the centuries, including once in the past 10-15b years or so.

Restoration work is supposed to be invisible.



Absolutely correct -- my own occasional interest in the Shroud is that its a FAR more interesting object than the "mediaeval fake" believers claim it to be.

I WAS hoping that some kind of discussion might be possible about these latest claims in that book --- that was without counting on the hordes of people accusing me, on the basis of their own dreadful leading questions, of all kinds of complete RUBBISH instead.

Restoration work strive to make it as invisible as possible from the side most likely looked at. There is no medieval method of weaving which make a restoration works invisible from both side. heck even jabba had to admit upthread something similar to that. That invisible weaving 1) it use thread from the cloth so it DOES NOT change the dating and 2) it is visible from the other side.

I humbly suggest you actually read and understand the previous argument given in this thread.

 

[Akri]

Restoration work strive to make it as invisible as possible from the side most likely looked at. There is no medieval method of weaving which make a restoration works invisible from both side.

Is there even a modern method of weaving that can make restoration work invisible from both sides? I seem to recall people saying up-thread that there wasn't, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

 

[Aepervius]

Questions are not claims.

/intermission

Well formulated question can certainly be set up as to claim something while putting the burden onto other to answer them.

If you do not think so let me ask you this "have you stopped beating your significant other ?"
it is only a question, right ?

/intermission

 

[Aepervius]

ergo, your methodology inaccurately reproduces the creation of the Shroud image ; ergo why do you bother talking about it ?

What's fascinating is the collective ability to argue two totally contradictory points simultaneously :

1) the Shroud has been completely faithfully reproduced using a sheet of linen, a statue/volunteer and some paint/chemicals

and

2) The Shroud cannot have been reproduced by wrapping a cloth around the body, because when I try that at home I get utterly different results

You are taking it THE WRONG WAY AROUND.


1) the CLAIM is that the shroud represent a real body wrapped , as opposed to a painting by some artist.

2) shrouding a real body shows 3D projection onto 2D distortion whicha re not shown in the shroud

3) ergo the shroud is not a real imprinting of a real corpse onto a cloth but rather a manually painted image.

 

[Jabba]

JabbaPappa,

- Just to let you know that I'm still around.

- I'm desperately trying to focus on one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time -- but, the one in which I currently find myself embroiled is extremely peripheral to the basic debate, and has recently morphed into 10 different sub-sub-sub-etc-issues... This isn't easy.
- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective.


- Anyway, I'm not sure just how I can help -- but, except for thinking that the Shroud probably is authentic, I totally agree with you (for all intents and purposes), and would like to help in your efforts to see if my perimeter deserves defending. Which is exactly what I came here to do.

--- Jabba (Rich)

 

[Slowvehicle]

JabbaPappa,

- Just to let you know that I'm still around.

- I'm desperately trying to focus on one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time -- but, the one in which I currently find myself embroiled is extremely peripheral to the basic debate, and has recently morphed into 10 different sub-sub-sub-etc-issues... This isn't easy.
- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective.


- Anyway, I'm not sure just how I can help -- but, except for thinking that the Shroud probably is authentic, I totally agree with you (for all intents and purposes), and would like to help in your efforts to see if my perimeter deserves defending. Which is exactly what I came here to do.

--- Jabba (Rich)

"Defending your perimeter"?

When do you intend to support, or retract, your absurd and demeaning claim, highlighted above?

 

[Aepervius]

Yep, see ?

No mention of her name.

Generals and particulars are different.

Yeah just insulting aspertion over a full profession without evidence. You are not insulting her personally you just insult the whole profession more or less.

In case you can#t read the tone, as it is writing, I am very sarcastic and think your ad hominem on the whole profession on the level of sewage yellow journalism.

 

[tsig]

"Defending your perimeter"?

When do you intend to support, or retract, your absurd and demeaning claim, highlighted above?

All his bases are belong to us.

 

[Aepervius]

All his bases are belong to us.

fancy that I thought he was only doing baseless assertion .

(OK I'll get my coat).

 

[carlitos]

Unlike a corpse, I am not under the effects of rigor mortis, nor has my body been twisted by an undertaker into any unusual position.

Furthermore, are you aware that to have arms of different lengths is a surprisingly common genetic mutation ? You seem to be suggesting that perfectly formed limbs are an absolute requirement in all human life.

Oh, and here we are with the "deformity" theory again --- notwithstanding the contrary suggestions by the anti-shroudies claiming that no deformity from the folding of the fabric is visible.

It's as if some people want to have their cake and eat it.

A couple of thoughts on this.

If a dude was hanged from a cross, might his shoulders have been dislocated? That could explain the arms being longer or non-symmetrical.

On the other hand, suggesting that the Son of Man, God's perfect child, had a common "deformity" does seem a bit rich (pardon the pun) in terms of apologetic logic. Really? God makes a kid and he's deformed?

I want to keep this one for posterity. That sentence is a work of pure genius. I couldn't come up with this if I tried.

Nominated for a stundie.

 

[Akhenaten]

As for "if he even existed", his historical existence is attested by the largest number and the oldest copies of texts than any other individual of the early 1st century.

Drivel.

 

[Jabba]

- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective."

"Defending your perimeter"?

When do you intend to support, or retract, your absurd and demeaning claim, highlighted above?

Slowvehicle,
- I'll try to start off with one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time.
#1. In 5138, I said, “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.”
- Note that I didn’t just say that EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCEPTED something; I said that I THINK that everyone involved accepted something.
--- Jabba

 

[Akri]

#1. In 5138, I said, “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.”
- Note that I didn’t just say that EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCEPTED something; I said that I THINK that everyone involved accepted something.
--- Jabba

There's no difference between "everyone involved accepted that the control samples were not effective" and “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.” You're the one making the statement, which means it's what you think. The questions are 1) do you still think that, and 2) if you do think that, what support do you have for it?

 

[John Jones]

- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective."

Slowvehicle,
- I'll try to start off with one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time.
#1. In 5138, I said, “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.”
- Note that I didn’t just say that EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCEPTED something; I said that I THINK that everyone involved accepted something.
--- Jabba

Weasel words. You're just making yourself look worse.

 

[Akhenaten]

JabbaPappa,

- Just to let you know that I'm still around.

- I'm desperately trying to focus on one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time -- but, the one in which I currently find myself embroiled is extremely peripheral to the basic debate, and has recently morphed into 10 different sub-sub-sub-etc-issues... This isn't easy.

It is, actually.

With a bit of effort it should have taken you a fraction of the 800 posts that it has to create the level of obfuscation that you've managed.

- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective.

No, the issue started with your foregone conclusion that the shroud is real and your zealous desire for this to be true despite all the evidence that it's a medieval fake has seen your 'case' trundling along backwards from that point ever since.

- Anyway, I'm not sure just how I can help -- but, except for thinking that the Shroud probably is authentic, I totally agree with you (for all intents and purposes)

I'd suggest that this is about as helpful as L Ron Hubbard giving mormanism a leg-up by attesting to his belief in Joe Smith and his talking hat.

and would like to help in your efforts to see if my perimeter deserves defending. Which is exactly what I came here to do.

It beggars belief that you're unable to tell that you failed in this ill-conceived mission months ago.

 

[carlitos]

- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective."

Slowvehicle,
- I'll try to start off with one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time.
#1. In 5138, I said, “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.”
- Note that I didn’t just say that EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCEPTED something; I said that I THINK that everyone involved accepted something.
--- Jabba

Awesome logic there.

I think that the moon is made of cheese. Now, I didn't say that the moon was made of cheese. I just said that I think it is.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The issue started with me saying that I thought that "everyone involved" had accepted that the control samples used in the carbon dating of the Shroud were ineffective."

Slowvehicle,
- I'll try to start off with one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time.
#1. In 5138, I said, “I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.”
- Note that I didn’t just say that EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCEPTED something; I said that I THINK that everyone involved accepted something.
--- Jabba

 

[Akri]

Awesome logic there.

I think that the moon is made of cheese. Now, I didn't say that the moon was made of cheese. I just said that I think it is.

Well of course it's made of cheese--that was the entire point of the documentary A Grand Day Out.

And now I have that music stuck in my head....

 

[Belz...]

I humbly suggest you actually read and understand the previous argument given in this thread.

I see a pattern developing...