Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Near-Invisible Re-Weave"

But you know that such a reweave would still be using threads from elsewhere in the shroud. That's the only way to match the fabric in a way that would even be close to invisible. And "near" invisible is like saying "near pregnant." As carefully as this area was studied by both fabric experts and pro-authenticists, no one found anything---until after the Carbon 14 tests, then they still didn't find anything, but concocted stories about how there might have been a patch...

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.
- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample, 2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

 

[Jabba]

Groundhog Day

No but there is evidence that this thread is 4 year and half old, and Jabba's argument or any other sidonist have not advanced a single step, and they have been unable to provide counter evidence against a medieval provenance.

This thread is the biggest homage to Bill Murray and Groundhog Day.

- So, I accomplished something!

 

[abaddon]

- So, I accomplished something!

Nope. Nothing.

 

[abaddon]

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.

No. I do not allow such absrdity.

- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

She was reluctant to admit she was plain flat out wrong is evidence of what?

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

Lots of talk, yes. Evidence? None.

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample, 2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

You can think what you like, but you still have to present evidence for a 2K date and you have failed to do so.

 

[SezMe]

.... 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

None of which are in evidence in this thread.

 

[John Jones]

Ward,
[...]

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample, 2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

Let's see these reasons.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.
- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample, 2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Please explain in what way your accusations of fraud, incompetence, collusion, and dishonesty, leveled (without any evidence) against Mme. F-L (including your unsupported allegations of what Mme. F-L "clearly" was "implying") have to do, in any way, with demonstrating that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old.

Please explain how your unsupported suspicions that the ¹⁴C dating must be wrong indicate, in any way, that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old.

Do that next. Don't rehearse thing that have already been dealt with. Present what evidence there is that convinces you that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- So, I accomplished something!

Certainly not any thing you were attempting to accomplish--and not any thing that in any way indicates that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

If the CIQ is not ~2000 years old, it is not old enough to be authentic, and none of this invisible weave and blood stuff even matters.

Please provide evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

 

[Mojo]

- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of ...

Equivocating much?

 

[Belz...]

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.

No, we need to do no such thing.

No one needs to entertain any of your delusions.

 

[Belz...]

- So, I accomplished something!

If you think that stalling your presentation of arguments and evidence for three years is an accomplishment, then sure.

 

[Loss Leader]

- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.
- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility

Jabba, do you not see the problem with this? None of it is evidence. It's just a web of hope strung between conjecture and ignorance. Is there any evidence that any of your "possibilities" were actually true?

If not, it's all just worthless.

Casting doubt on the evidence does not mean the shroud is 2,000 years old.

3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

Name them.

 

[jimbob]

I've just looked at this, and as far as I can see realpaladin's link on the second page of the first part of the thread is sufficient to close the thread

- 2.1. The Shroud has been scientifically studied for a century, is perhaps the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts, is at least 654 years old – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.

Ehm... http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005

Especially this quote

Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings.

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said.

His reproduction is very close and used available techniques.

 

[Degeneve]

Ward,
- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

I put below a link to Mrs. Flury-Lemberg article. Could you show us where exactly in this document she was implying "except for the patches"?

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

 

[Craig4]

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.
- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample, 2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

Why do we need to allow for the possibility that the corner where the sample came from was not examined very well?

ETA: if there were lots of reasons to believe the CIQ is older than 2000 years, you would have presented them by now. You've been asked repeatedly to do so and you have not. The obvious conclusion here is that you do not have lots of reasons and you know you don't.

 

[catsmate]

Ward,
- So far, I think that all we need to allow in order to not rule out the possibility of "near-invisible" is the possibility that Madame FL did not examine that tiny corner very well.

Rubbish. Your need for a patch to prop up your belief in no way effects the reality that the cloth was examined and no "invisible" patch found.

- And then, at some point, she claimed that the cloth was all the same (or, something to that effect). Clearly, she was implying, "except for the patches." So perhaps, once she realized how much her claim had influenced opinion, she was reluctant to correct it... Just saying...

Pathetic. Cite where there is an implication of patching other than your imagination.

- And also, we’ve seen lots of talk about the possibility of near-invisible re-weave – except for the back of the cloth. But, did FL say that she had actually examined the back -- or that tiny corner of the back?

This has already been dealt with. The rear of the cloth was examined.

- Anyway, I still think that a near-invisible re-weave is a reasonable possibility

No it isn't.

, because 1) Rogers and others have found some strange things in that sample,

Using utterly irrelevant methods on samples of dubious authenticity.

2) I think that there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the 10 year carbon dating process in this case

Which are? Other than your desperate need to believe in the cloth's authenticity that is.

and 3) lots of reasons for believing that the shroud is much older than 700 years...

Which are?

 

[Jabba]

Painting?/Imprint/Dead Body

There are several other ways to create an image other than painting it, including, certainly, making an impring of a dead body.

Hans

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

 

[Sherman Bay]

- What are those other ways?

Here's one. Joe Nickell was able to make a near-duplicate of the Shroud by stretching a cloth over a solid, bas relief of a face and daubing it with powdered dye from a blunt brush. the bas relief, being flatter, provided the distortion that a 3D sculpture doesn't, and the daubing, rather than painting, resulted in a fuzzy, faint image due to the places where the cloth didn't cling closely to the hills and valleys of the sculpture.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Please explain what this has to do with the CIQ being 2000 years old.