Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
-
David,
- But then there's also Rogers, Raes, Brown, Villarreal, the Whangers and Hall who claim to have found some sort of anomaly (ies) -- and evidence for repair -- in the sample area. If you insist, I'll try to provide links to all of these, but you probably have them already.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Yes, we know these people have claims. Have you really read these claims? If so, can you explain anything that might be of substance to your position about these claims in your own words? Can you make an argument about why, in your opinion, these claims should be considered valid?
 
Jabba said:
I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
Click to expand...


One lives but to serve.


ShroudFlowChart.png
 
Jabba said:
- I accidentally posted this before ready, so I'll rush to add stuff...
- This is just the beginning of trying to map our discussion. It will need all sorts of additions and fleshing out.
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
- Below, I am "1-." You guys are "2-."
- If you don't like my representation of your side, let me know.


1-1. Reasons why authentic

2-1. Shroud, simply, is NOT authentic
2-1.1. Evidence for is essentially RUBBISH
2-1.2. Carbon dating
2-1.2.1. Ends reasonable debate,
2-1.2.2. Shroudies must PROVE it’s wrong.

1-2. Don’t need proof
1-3. Need preponderance of evidence

2-2. This isn’t a court

1-4. I disagree, but whatever
1-4.1. Two kinds of evidence
1-4.1.1. Direct
1-4.1.2. Indirect

2-3. Don’t bother with indirect – it’s of no consequence.

1-5. Think indirect important, but OK
1-6. Two kinds of Direct evidence also
1-6.1. Preemptive strikes against
1-6.2. Potential problems
1-6.2.1. Sample not representative
1-6.2.1.1. Contaminated?
1-6.2.1.2. Reweave?
1-6.2.2. Something happened to entire shroud
1-6.2.3. Incompetence
1-6.2.4. Conscious chicanery
1-6.2.5. Subconscious chicanery
Click to expand...


I submit to you that you have never (that I recall) referred back to one of these oddly numbered lists when stating an argument. They are vague and unclear bullet points that I don't need or understand. If they are notes for yourself, it would be appropriate to keep them to yourself.
 
Jabba said:
-
David,
- But then there's also Rogers, Raes, Brown, Villarreal, the Whangers and Hall who claim to have found some sort of anomaly (ies) -- and evidence for repair -- in the sample area. If you insist, I'll try to provide links to all of these, but you probably have them already.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...
And how many of these supposed "experts" have actually examined the cloth and how many have expertise in textiles.
:rolleyes:

Jabba said:
<gibbersnip>
Click to expand...


HighRiser said:
Brilliant, Pharaoh. =)
Click to expand...
Indeed, very apt. :)
 
GT/CS said:
Here it is. The dating of the samples at 1:20 is something I had never seen before, and if the dates are accurate I wonder why they are chronological.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kK08C7iEfU
Click to expand...
1. References to unnamed "experts" who supposedly were given pictures of the shroud sample area and allegedly said there were signs of reweaving.
Utterly worthless, third hand, hearsay.
2. Allegations that the sampled are was adjacent to a piece supposedly cut to sell, at some unspecified time.
Utterly worthless, third hand, hearsay.
3. Repetition of the Benford and Marino nonsense about a mix of first and sixteenth century material giving a fourteenth century date.
No calculations about the level of material necessary.
4. Benford claim that the radiocarbon dating results indicates some parts of the sample contained more (alleged) sixteenth century material than others.
No calculation to support this claim, contradicted by the sample preparation methodology and spouted by someone with no knowledge of radiocarbon dating and an agenda to push.

OK I have wasted two minutes watching this crap. It's nonsense.

If you have any points you'd like to make about the shroud and the radiocarbon dating of it, perhaps you would be so good as to make them? Rather than referring to youtube'd TV programmes and expecting others to wade through them in search of some point you might be trying to make.


Now I'm off to watch the effect of capsaicin applied to the genitals. Not unlike being made to read this thread I suspect.
 
Jabba said:
- I accidentally posted this before ready, so I'll rush to add stuff...
- This is just the beginning of trying to map our discussion. It will need all sorts of additions and fleshing out.
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
- Below, I am "1-." You guys are "2-."
- If you don't like my representation of your side, let me know.


1-1. Reasons why authentic

2-1. Shroud, simply, is NOT authentic
2-1.1. Evidence for is essentially RUBBISH
2-1.2. Carbon dating
2-1.2.1. Ends reasonable debate,
2-1.2.2. Shroudies must PROVE it’s wrong.

1-2. Don’t need proof
1-3. Need preponderance of evidence

2-2. This isn’t a court

1-4. I disagree, but whatever
1-4.1. Two kinds of evidence
1-4.1.1. Direct
1-4.1.2. Indirect

2-3. Don’t bother with indirect – it’s of no consequence.

1-5. Think indirect important, but OK
1-6. Two kinds of Direct evidence also
1-6.1. Preemptive strikes against
1-6.2. Potential problems
1-6.2.1. Sample not representative
1-6.2.1.1. Contaminated?
1-6.2.1.2. Reweave?
1-6.2.2. Something happened to entire shroud
1-6.2.3. Incompetence
1-6.2.4. Conscious chicanery
1-6.2.5. Subconscious chicanery
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of this nonsense?
 
HighRiser said:
Jabba said:
- I accidentally posted this before ready, so I'll rush to add stuff...
- This is just the beginning of trying to map our discussion. It will need all sorts of additions and fleshing out.
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
- Below, I am "1-." You guys are "2-."
- If you don't like my representation of your side, let me know.


1-1. Reasons why authentic

2-1. Shroud, simply, is NOT authentic
2-1.1. Evidence for is essentially RUBBISH
2-1.2. Carbon dating
2-1.2.1. Ends reasonable debate,
2-1.2.2. Shroudies must PROVE it’s wrong.

1-2. Don’t need proof
1-3. Need preponderance of evidence

2-2. This isn’t a court

1-4. I disagree, but whatever
1-4.1. Two kinds of evidence
1-4.1.1. Direct
1-4.1.2. Indirect

2-3. Don’t bother with indirect – it’s of no consequence.

1-5. Think indirect important, but OK
1-6. Two kinds of Direct evidence also
1-6.1. Preemptive strikes against
1-6.2. Potential problems
1-6.2.1. Sample not representative
1-6.2.1.1. Contaminated?
1-6.2.1.2. Reweave?
1-6.2.2. Something happened to entire shroud
1-6.2.3. Incompetence
1-6.2.4. Conscious chicanery
1-6.2.5. Subconscious chicanery
Click to expand...


I submit to you that you have never (that I recall) referred back to one of these oddly numbered lists when stating an argument. They are vague and unclear bullet points that I don't need or understand. If they are notes for yourself, it would be appropriate to keep them to yourself.
Click to expand...


That had to have been some inane attempt at self-parody.

Wasn't it..?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
-
David,
- But then there's also Rogers, Raes, Brown, Villarreal, the Whangers and Hall who claim to have found some sort of anomaly (ies) -- and evidence for repair -- in the sample area. If you insist, I'll try to provide links to all of these, but you probably have them already.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

You place a very heterogeneous list (Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). Only Raes and Hall had directly seen a piece of the Shroud. They have found some cotton threads in their samples, yes. McCrone and others also found it. This is not an anomaly, because it can be explained without resigning the 14C dating. E. T. Hall thought it was due to contamination. (It is a strange way to count opposite people to 1988 dating by including one of the most conspicuous defenders of it: Mr. Hall. Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). The rest of the list are people who weren’t experts and had never seen the Shroud. Their hypotheses are based on unreliable work and have been refuted by experts that could verify them by the only way that one can do it: come and see.

I think this item has been discussed many times in this forum. Please, don't put here the Marino and Prior's endless list of "evidences". We don't deserve that punishment.
 
David Mo said:
You place a very heterogeneous list (Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). Only Raes and Hall had directly seen a piece of the Shroud. They have found some cotton threads in their samples, yes. McCrone and others also found it. This is not an anomaly, because it can be explained without resigning the 14C dating. E. T. Hall thought it was due to contamination. (It is a strange way to count opposite people to 1988 dating by including one of the most conspicuous defenders of it: Mr. Hall. Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). The rest of the list are people who weren’t experts and had never seen the Shroud. Their hypotheses are based on unreliable work and have been refuted by experts that could verify them by the only way that one can do it: come and see.

I think this item has been discussed many times in this forum. Please, don't put here the Marino and Prior's endless list of "evidences". We don't deserve that punishment.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION: Rogers touched the Shroud. But he was not an expert and he did not do the simplest thing he should have been done: a textile examination of microphotos of STURP by an expert before beginning his doubtous tests. Perhaps because he had a fixed idea.
 
Debate/Flow Charts

Akhenaten said:
One lives but to serve.


[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ShroudFlowChart.png[/qimg]​
Click to expand...
-
Akhenaten,
- Thanks. Could you point me in a direction for trying to learn how to use that flow chart program?
--- Jabba
 
Akhenaten said:
One lives but to serve.


[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ShroudFlowChart.png[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

:D

And (to repeat from a while back, though it may be long enough ago that it will seem new to some), the other side of the argument:
picture.php
 
Jabba said:
-
David,
- But then there's also Rogers, Raes, Brown, Villarreal, the Whangers and Hall who claim to have found some sort of anomaly (ies) -- and evidence for repair -- in the sample area. If you insist, I'll try to provide links to all of these, but you probably have them already.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

The Whangers?
Didn't we do the Whangers upthread?
And Villareal?
And Rogers?
And Brown?
And Raes?

David Mo said:
You place a very heterogeneous list (Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). Only Raes and Hall had directly seen a piece of the Shroud. They have found some cotton threads in their samples, yes. McCrone and others also found it. This is not an anomaly, because it can be explained without resigning the 14C dating. E. T. Hall thought it was due to contamination. (It is a strange way to count opposite people to 1988 dating by including one of the most conspicuous defenders of it: Mr. Hall. Marino and Benford, ay, ay!). The rest of the list are people who weren’t experts and had never seen the Shroud. Their hypotheses are based on unreliable work and have been refuted by experts that could verify them by the only way that one can do it: come and see.

I think this item has been discussed many times in this forum. Please, don't put here the Marino and Prior's endless list of "evidences". We don't deserve that punishment.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave.
I owe you a caña at the A Mi Venta pub.


Jabba said:
...
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?...
Click to expand...

Akhenaten said:
Yes. Make it nice and big.

I have a feeling that a number of us are going to want to print it out and frame it, the better to share with our friends in real life. ...
Click to expand...

Of course Pharaoh's wisdom puts Solomon's repute in the shade and I await the results of Jabba's efforts.
Meanwhile, I'll be in the breakfast nook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom