• 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.
Jabba said:
- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...
4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

The bible says the shroud was wound around the body not draped on the body and that there were spices. The SoT is not biblical.
 
Jabba said:
- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.[..]

--- Jabba
Click to expand...
You spend most of your time promising to address points or answer questions at some point in the future - which never seems to arrive.


I don't think you have any intention of answering any points or questions.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
You spend most of your time promising to address points or answer questions at some point in the future - which never seems to arrive.


I don't think you have any intention of ability to answering any points or questions.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Dinwar said:
I have no sympathy for you, for two reasons.
Click to expand...


Let me add a third. HE was the one who claimed to have been "researching the shroud" for 20 years. Yet, any time anyone asks about anything, he complains he doesn't have time to look into it?

Oh boo hoo.

He came here under false pretense, and now cries about not knowing enough to answer the challenge. Nope, no sympathy from me, either.
 
kerikiwi said:
No, you don't.
Click to expand...

I have to defend Jabba here : he IS answering question. But like "3" is not a valid answer to the "1+1=?" question, his answer make no sense, do not take into account torough past debunking, and he does not shore his answer with evidence.

Still he "answers" (mostly invalid answers) so make that what you will.
 
Jabba said:
- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
Click to expand...
No, you spend most of that time telling us that you have little time and will get back to us at a future date. If you have time limitations then perhaps it would be better if you simply held off on posting until you had something meaningful to contribute?

Here's an idea: open up a text document on your computer, and as you find the time start adding your arguments and references to it. Don't worry if this takes a few days, or even a few weeks (it's obvious at this point that we're willing to wait). When this document contains everything you want to say, as clearly as you can say it, copy and paste it into the Post box.

That way you'll be able to work at your own pace, and we'll get the kind of response we're looking for. Everybody wins.
 
pgwenthold said:
Let me add a third. HE was the one who claimed to have been "researching the shroud" for 20 years. Yet, any time anyone asks about anything, he complains he doesn't have time to look into it?

Oh boo hoo.

He came here under false pretense, and now cries about not knowing enough to answer the challenge. Nope, no sympathy from me, either.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's been about one year since I started posting in this thread, and others here about the shroud. Before that I was aware that it existed, that it was a medieval fake (as demonstrated by the radiocarbon dating when I was a teenager) and some facts about it (from it being used as an example in a college tutorial), everything else I've learned in the last 13 months while living my normal life. Jabba, who's claimed to have researched the shroud for many years, demonstrably knows far less.
 
catsmate1 said:
Indeed. It's been about one year since I started posting in this thread, and others here about the shroud. Before that I was aware that it existed, that it was a medieval fake (as demonstrated by the radiocarbon dating when I was a teenager) and some facts about it (from it being used as an example in a college tutorial), everything else I've learned in the last 13 months while living my normal life. Jabba, who's claimed to have researched the shroud for many years, demonstrably knows far less.
Click to expand...
But you are not reality-challenged by a delusional believe, therefore it's easy to learn something new.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- As you all know,
Click to expand...

Why do you bother telling us ?

1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
Click to expand...

Otherwise you might post even more instances of "I'll be back" ?

2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure.

3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time
Click to expand...

There is no "issue". The shroud is a fake. Deal with it.
 
catsmate1 said:
Indeed. It's been about one year since I started posting in this thread, and others here about the shroud. Before that I was aware that it existed, that it was a medieval fake (as demonstrated by the radiocarbon dating when I was a teenager) and some facts about it (from it being used as an example in a college tutorial), everything else I've learned in the last 13 months while living my normal life. Jabba, who's claimed to have researched the shroud for many years, demonstrably knows far less.
Click to expand...

Agree. I have followed this thread from close to it's inception, and all there has been from then are various promises to provide answers at some unspecified future point.

I believe Rule 12 is it not? states attack the argument, not the arguer. What is one to do, then, with an arguer who has no argument? For over a year.
 
Jabba said:
- As you all know,
1) I only have so much time to spend on our debate.
2) I spend almost all of that time trying to answer your different questions and comments.
3) But then, I do want to focus on one "issue" at a time, which actually means that I want to keep narrowing my focus -- as most issues have sub-issues, and most sub-issues have sub-sub-issues, etc. In other words, I have to leave most questions and comments unanswered -- hoping to get back to them at a later time...
4) But more than that, if a post is laced with sarcasm and derision -- which almost every post is -- I don't have a whole lot of incentive to get back to it anyway...

- So anyway, if you want to have the best chance of having your q's and c's answered, drop your sarcasm and derision.

--- Jabba
Click to expand...

There's only one issue here- providing evidence there is reason to think the C14 dating is inaccurate.

Akhenaten said:
Exactly. I've never seen anyone have so many breakfasts.
Click to expand...

From the breakfast nook
300pxsyriancafe.jpg
 
abaddon said:
Agree. I have followed this thread from close to it's inception, and all there has been from then are various promises to provide answers at some unspecified future point.

I believe Rule 12 is it not? states attack the argument, not the arguer. What is one to do, then, with an arguer who has no argument? For over a year.
Click to expand...

Only keep pointing that out. Otherwise Jabba or someone else will claim they 'won'.
 
I'd assumed Jabba'd read the paper before posting about it here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8381142&postcount=1874

Davefoc was able to access it and quoted from it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8453575&postcount=2345

" In addition, we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. Rogers (2005) and others assert that the Raes and the “radiocarbon samples” he studied are dyed, in contrast to the main part of the shroud. As stated by Rogers (2005), “No other part of the shroud shows such a coating.” The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken “from the main part of the shroud.” Those removing the
samples at the time were aware of repair material. We conclude from our observations and the history of our sample, that our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud. There is no evidence to the contrary. We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously. "

In any case, we know the patching idea is a non-starter.
I'm curious to know why Jabba has brought it up again, a revenant from pages past.
 
For those who have difficulty using Google Translate, I can inform you that the Italian paper mentioned by Jabba is a gentle put-down of Jull's. It says that, far from proving that the Carbon dating area was integral to the shroud, it actually (and probably accidentally) proves the opposite.
Jull's assessments of the warp and weft counts per inch are wildly different from three other quotations.
Warp: Jull-30, Timossi-40, Raes-38.6, Vial-37.6, Vercelli-36
Weft: Jull-40, Timossi-27, Weft-25.7, Vial-25.8, Verceli-24
And Jull's assessment of the thickness of the linen is wildly different from two other quotations.
Jull-250 microns, Vercelli(ten measurements)-340 to 430 microns, Jackson-318 to 391 microns.
If Jull and his pupil really stand by their measurements, then either they demonstrate that their sample was very different from the main body of the shroud, or that the other measurements are hopelessly inaccurate. If they concede that they got the warp and the weft confused, and made a mistake with the thickness, then one cannot but wonder about the accuracy of their other observations.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, is it possible to identify warp and weft from a sample cut our from the middle of a piece of cloth? Just want to know.
And having asked this I shall reiterate that I am quite convinced that the "shroud" in a 13C fake.
 
Last edited:
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