• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate1 said:
  • Who did it?
  • Who paid for it?
  • Where was the technique used learned
  • Why was the technique not used after the fire damage?
  • Why has it never been used again on any fabric?
  • Why is there no record of the alleged patching?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jabba doesn't seem to understand that his claims have implications that are associated with them that need to be addressed. Non-thought out objections are not really objections at all, but are nothing but blowing smoke.
 
IanS said:
You say they are only "claims"? And you want me to provide “papers”?...
Click to expand...
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
Why should he? You don't.
 
Jabba said:
... By "source," I meant a research paper. ...
Click to expand...

That's fantastic, Jabba.
I'm looking forward to reading the research paper you'll be posting up about the enigmatic patching you've written about here.
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

You've lost the benefit of the doubt long ago, Jabba.
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...



You are saying that you do not accept that any of what I just described is true? That unless I name a book for you, you do not believe that Flury-Lemberg and Ghibirti examined the shroud and said that Rogers was wrong?

You are disputing all those "claims" are you?

Here are all the "claims" again -



IanS said:
You say they are only "claims"? And you want me to provide “papers”?

You are doubting that Flury-Lemberg and prof Ghibirti examined the shroud for a month in 2002, with the backing cloth removed, and both clearly stated that Rogers was profoundly wrong ever to have claimed a patch? You are disputing that are you?

You are disputing that a sample was ever cut from that precise region and studied by Gilbert Raes as long ago as 1973?

You are disputing that STuRP themselves, inc. Ray Rogers, examined that precise area of the shroud in 1978 and retained sample fibres from that area?

You are disputing that you have had the article from Antonacci saying that thousands of photos of that precise area have been taken?

You are disputing that the 10 year long committee meetings discussed that Raes area in great detail? Remember, that committee was initially intending to perform the C14 dating on what remained of the Raes sample. You are disputing all that?

That 10 year long series of meetings is all described in Gove's book, which you have. Are you disputing that?

You are disputing that a great number of people were present deciding for 2 hours, on film, that the C14 was being cut from an area free from repairs and patches?

You are disputing that the actual C14 paper, co-authored by all three labs, specifically says the procedure had been to cut the sample well away from any patches or repairs? You are disputing that are you?

You have already had, numerous times over, the exact references to the paper in Nature, the article by Antonacci, the findings of Gilbert Raes in 1973 (eg see Gilbert Raes: “The textile study of 1973-1974”. Shroud Spectrum International. 1991. N°38/39.)

You can check for references on all this yourself in Wikipedia. Here are a couple of very recent examples you may have missed -


Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud...]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Rogers stated that after further study he was convinced that: "The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[74] However such claims are disputed by Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who observed in 2011 that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up."[75]



I could go on, but .... what are you actually disputing here???
Click to expand...





And you are still long overdue to answer that question which I asked waaay before you asked me for "sources", books and papers ... so, you provide a proper answer to that question, and then after you do that I will deal with your much later request for "sources, books, and papers". Here is the question again (6th time?) -


Q - how could all three labs, and all the committee members, Flury Lemberg, Prof Ghiberti, and everyone else since 1973 (inc. STuRP and Ray Rogers himself in 1978), when they were all specifically looking for any such patch in that precise area, all fail to notice that the entire sample cut for C14 was not actually from the shroud at all, but was instead just a piece of cloth from something else entirely? [/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
This has already been done and you ignored them.
Start with the principle Nature paper, examine the citations there (mostly in Nature and Radiocarbon but also Nuclear Instruments and Methods and other journals).
Walter McCrone's book (Judgement Day For The Turin Shroud) and papers (in Microscope and elsewhere) and their citations.
Nickell's Inquest on the Shroud of Turin.
Eastlake's Methods and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and Maters covers the artistic style of the shroud well.
 
Can somebody explain to me again how someone who claims to have been researching the shroud for 20 years needs references that he can get "easy access" to?

What in the blazes has he been doing for 20 years?
 
I get the feeling that Jabba has moved from the "denial" stage into the "anger" stage. Eventually he will realize that his pet belief is dead.
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Not at all, Jabba.
Source material has been referenced and linked to over and over in this thread.
Have you forgotten that?

Now, about the research paper you've promised us about that 'patching'?
You'll be posting it up soon, of course?
 
Jabba said:
Ian,
- I want you to refer to papers (or books) -- hopefully, papers (or books) to which I can get easy access and in which the "examiners" explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Otherwise, aren't you just asking me to trust someone's opinion?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

You haven't read the ones you've been provided, and you don't provide any of your own, so just sit down. No one expects you to trust anything - they're just tired of playing that game where sources are provided only to have you ignore them.
 
pgwenthold said:
Can somebody explain to me again how someone who claims to have been researching the shroud for 20 years needs references that he can get "easy access" to?

What in the blazes has he been doing for 20 years?
Click to expand...

I think what Jabba calls research is reading and embracing everything that comes along supporting authenticity, and rejecting anything that supports forgery. I also assume that his idea that he's been doing good research is reinforced by shroud believers patting him on the back all these years in shroud believer fora. A lack of experience with educated opponents may be playing a part in the current quagmire of dialogue, as well.

Just my 2¢.
 
Normally I would say, "Good on you, Jabba!" For recognizing the importance of having the primary references. But instead I find Jabba's latest approach just sad. The references have been provided to him, and yet he is repeating his demand over and over as if he can't even see that. People have even bent over backward to provide repeats of citations already provided in the thread. But all he can do is ask for them yet again.

Jabba, just start with the Nature paper and the references in it, okay?

Edit: wait-never mind. Why don't you at last provide the evidence you've been promising for a year, okay? Let's start there.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Has anybody looked for the word "Hers" on it?
Click to expand...

That's what sucks about Christianity--they have some lanky, shaggy dude as their god. Imagine if they'd had Mary Magdalene as their goddess.

"It's the one true burial shroud of God!"
"God's hot...."
:D

I'll leave to your imagination the implications of the Eucharist. ;)

Also, just want to point out that Firefox knows the word "Magdalene" but not lithostratigraphic.
 
Dinwar said:
That's what sucks about Christianity--they have some lanky, shaggy dude as their god. Imagine if they'd had Mary Magdalene as their goddess.

"It's the one true burial shroud of God!"
"God's hot...."
:D

I'll leave to your imagination the implications of the Eucharist. ;)

Also, just want to point out that Firefox knows the word "Magdalene" but not lithostratigraphic.
Click to expand...

Must...resist...pun...about ...

..."layers".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom