Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[ComfySlippers]

Where can I get some of these magic scales Jabba uses?

 

[Nonpareil]

For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years.

Since my last post was apparently not clear enough:

No one cares.

Either present your direct evidence that the cloth is two thousand years old or give up. Nothing else matters.

 

[Stuart]

Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

As has been pointed out many times, the existence and age of any blood is irrelevant. Any marks on the fabric can only be the same age (or younger) than the fabric itself.
It is, therefore, totally irrelevant to discuss what might be on the fabric and how they got there when all the current evidence points to it being around 700 years old.
You must disprove the age of the cloth first before trying to identify anything else about it.

 

[Craig4]

Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

The ONLY way to support authenticity is to date the cloth to 2000 CEish first. No matter what is on the cloth, it has to have been deposited after 1290 CE. Without dating the cloth you have nothing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

Ehr, I said there is no PROOF either way. Do try to read the posts you reply to. There are elements that can come from blood and elements that can come from paint. This, the issue is unresolved.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

Blood does not support authenticy. Lack of blood would support inauthenticy, but the opposite is not the case. You like to compare to court cases: Finding the suspect in possession of the murder weapon is evidence if guilt, but NOT finding the murder weapon is NOT evidence of innocense.

Hans

 

[John Jones]

As has been pointed out many times, the existence and age of any blood is irrelevant. Any marks on the fabric can only be the same age (or younger) than the fabric itself.
It is, therefore, totally irrelevant to discuss what might be on the fabric and how they got there when all the current evidence points to it being around 700 years old.
You must disprove the age of the cloth first before trying to identify anything else about it.

Well, McCrone was hard to get along with, and there's all that Undocumented History^[TM]

 

[Mojo]

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years.

As usual, there is not a trace of evidence to support your assertion.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Well, McCrone was hard to get along with, and there's all that Undocumented History^[TM]

Citing the total lack of tangible proof as proof of one's claims? Have we discovered a viable strategy to counter the Chewbacca defense? Maaaannn, this thread continues to deliver!

 

[sackett]

After that, not so much

Citing the total lack of tangible proof as proof of one's claims?...Maaaannn, this thread continues to deliver!

Alas, this is an old strategy in UFO circles.

Q: "Why don't we pick up the aliens' radio signals?"

A (very gravely, as if explaining to a child): "Because advanced beings obviously use other methods to communicate."

Thus:

Q: "If there's no evidence, how do you know the Shroud is authentic?"

A # 1: "Because the Shroud is authentic, evidence is not required."

A # 2 (while the questioner is still gasping): "Miracles don't leave evidence."

And so on. It's amusing for the first few years.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, I really like my question that I have been asking:

How does Jabba rule out the possibility that the Shroud is actually a burial cloth from the middle ages?

As far as I can tell, it is consistent with all the things that he would postulate as evidence for it being authentic, PLUS it has the advantage of being consistent with the more modern dating of the cloth. It would account for blood, and even "tortured" blood. The only objection I can see is the special pleading that it has to be a crucified person.

 

[Monza]

- I am trying to answer that question.
- The reason that the scale would tilt towards 2000 -- if we discover that the stains are in fact blood -- is that it would tilt (at least a little) in the direction of authenticity. And if the shroud is actually authentic, it is about 2000 years old -- not 700 years old, or whatever.

Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years. Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood, and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

No, you are not trying to answer the question. You have been actively trying to avoid answering it.

Regarding the authenticity, you have it completely backwards. Hypothetically, if the shroud were to be proven authentic no one would be asking about the age. The age would be inherent. You are trying to use circular reasoning to account for the age question by implying authenticity. Understand that the purpose of everyone asking you to provide evidence for the age is that it is a much much lower threshold than providing evidence for authenticity. Showing the age of the shroud is 2000 years old is the simplest and first step necessary to ultimately showing authenticity.

Keep in mind that I have been asking the question because you said the blood is where you will start in proving the age of 2000 years. So it is only natural for you to clarify how the mere presence of blood can possibly be used to infer age.

What you want is to say that the presence of blood is consistent with authenticity. This may be true. However, what you fail to grasp is that the presence of blood is also consistent with in-authenticity. So it ultimately gets you no where.

How does the presence of blood affect the age of the shroud?

This is the question being asked. It is OK to state that blood cannot be used to determine the age of the shroud. If there is a way, please say so, but do not change the question so you avoid the answer.

 

[Monza]

Actually, I really like my question that I have been asking:

How does Jabba rule out the possibility that the Shroud is actually a burial cloth from the middle ages?

As far as I can tell, it is consistent with all the things that he would postulate as evidence for it being authentic, PLUS it has the advantage of being consistent with the more modern dating of the cloth. It would account for blood, and even "tortured" blood. The only objection I can see is the special pleading that it has to be a crucified person.

That is a very good question. I'd like to hear Jabba's answer.*



*But only after hearing him answer my question.

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

Using Jabba's pan-scale analogy, instead of two pans, it seems to me that there should be roughly 2000 pans instead. So far, several of the pans in the medieval range are hanging low thanks to the carbon dating, the memo, art style and various other affirmative pieces of evidence. In the case of the blood, even if Jabba somehow shows that it actually is blood on the shroud, then that piece of evidence would be placed in ALL 2000 pans equally unless the blood can somehow be dated. The presence of blood neither indicates authenticity nor non-authenticity. The net result is that the presence of blood on the shroud is a moot point unless Jabba can demonstrate the age of the blood. Can he?

- I'll be back.
- I am unable to comply.
- Basic psychology is among my sub-routines.
- I'm not authorized to answer your questions.
- No sign of brain trauma.

 

[Sideroxylon]

An authentic and inauthentic shroud could both have blood on them.

But it tilts the scales a tiny bit towards authenticity, right?

 

[Wolrab]

I wonder how much blood from the middle ages, or whenever, would be needed (after the cloth was cleaned) to throw off the carbon dating of a 2000 year old cloth? I would imagine they would have had more blood than cloth, and that still wouldn't prove it was Jesus' shroud.

 

[John Jones]

I wonder how much blood from the middle ages, or whenever, would be needed (after the cloth was cleaned) to throw off the carbon dating of a 2000 year old cloth? I would imagine they would have had more blood than cloth, and that still wouldn't prove it was Jesus' shroud.

Exactly. Everyone here knows that, including Jabba. Jabba even acknowledged that back in the earlier threads.

 

[zooterkin]

Using Jabba's pan-scale analogy, instead of two pans, it seems to me that there should be roughly 2000 pans instead.

Why only 2000?

 

[catsmate]

- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...

Untrue. This is no evidence of the presence of blood, as we've shown before. Several times in fact...

- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood --

True.

consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity.

Actually no. The presence pr absence of blood isn't really that relevant.

So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood.

Rubbish. There is no evidence of the presence of blood.[/QUOTE]

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show how blood would support authenticity and 2000 years.

It wouldn't.

Once I give that objective my best shot, I'll move on to what I consider more evidence that the stains really are blood,

Why not do that first?

and that the stain particulars support the stains being those of Jesus.

Seriously? How are you going to prove the (non-existent) blood is from one person? More of your "AB" garbage?

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

Lack of blood would be heavy, even conclusive evidence against authenticy.
At the moment, there is no proof either way. There may or may not be blood there. Thus, the blood issue does not provide evidence against authenticy...

Hans,
- Currently, there is evidence -- both pro and con -- in regard to the blood issue...
- For instance, Walter McCrone has provided evidence against the stains being blood -- consequently, he has provided evidence against authenticity. So far, however, I just think that the preponderance of evidence favors the stains being blood...

Ehr, I said there is no PROOF either way...

- If you're referring to my earlier claim to address one's first Q/C first, you're right -- I addressed your second claim first instead. But, that was because I took no issue with your first Q/C...
- In the future, I'll just try to address the included issue that seems most 'pressing' first.

 

[JayUtah]

In the future, I'll just try to address the included issue that seems most 'pressing' first.

The issue that has been most pressing for the past two weeks is your stubborn reliance on an obvious false dilemma. I and many other people have endeavored diligently to instruct you about it and engage your attention to remedy your structurally unsound argument.

Any word on when we may expect you to do that?