Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Mojo]

What if another burial shroud was found today that was very similar to the Shroud of Turin? It has an image that looks like Jesus and blood stains. Carbon dating shows an age of about 900 years. Which is the real shroud?

900 is nearer to 2000 than 700, which would make the scales tilt towards the second one being authentic.

 

[John Jones]

900 is nearer to 2000 than 700, which would make the scales tilt towards the second one being authentic.

That was his argument for using the Sudarium of Oviedo as proof that the CIQ was authentic, I think. It was some bizarro reasoning.

 

[Mojo]

A 900 year old shroud would be less than 30% more authentic than a 700 year old one. The Sudarium is over 85% more authentic!

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Look, it's simple:

The sudarium has lines that may be interpreted as a nose. That nose's size is similar to that on the CIQ. Therefore they are images of the same person. Therefore they are both authentic. Since they are both authentic, and both came back with different dates, we can throw away the ¹⁴C tests.

Totally logical.

 

[John Jones]

Look, it's simple:

The sudarium has lines that may be interpreted as a nose. That nose's size is similar to that on the CIQ. Therefore they are images of the same person. Therefore they are both authentic. Since they are both authentic, and both came back with different dates, we can throw away the ¹⁴C tests.

Totally logical.

My IQ went down just reading that.

 

[jond]

Look, it's simple:

The sudarium has lines that may be interpreted as a nose. That nose's size is similar to that on the CIQ. Therefore they are images of the same person. Therefore they are both authentic. Since they are both authentic, and both came back with different dates, we can throw away the ¹⁴C tests.

Totally logical.

It's even worse than that: Jabba accepts the dating on the sudarium, but insists that this is still somehow evidence of authenticity.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It's even worse than that: Jabba accepts the dating on the sudarium, but insists that this is still somehow evidence of authenticity.

Of course. Since the cloths "match", and have different ¹⁴C results, the carbon tests are thrown out. Add undocumented history, bang: Jeebus.

 

[John Jones]

Of course. Since the cloths "match", and have different ¹⁴C results, the carbon tests are thrown out. Add undocumented history, and grouchy McCrone, bang: Jeebus.

FIFY

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

Hugh,
- I know that you disagree with me about the ultimate preponderance of evidence, but I suspect that you agree with me that concluding that the stains were in fact blood would be at least a little bit supportive of authenticity and 2000 years of age. if so, could you help me explain my logic?

...
I think it may be worth looking more closely at what makes people believe one thing rather than another. I'm not sure the word 'logic' is entirely applicable in this case. In the hypothetical court of law sometimes adduced by Shroud investigators (books including Judgment, Inquest and Verdict among their titles), where facts are disputed and evidence challenged, a jury can be swayed almost as much by emotion as by objectivity, and appeals to emotion can be based on evidence as illogical as mere consistency with the case. So, if the appearance of linen, blood or a beard are consistent with the crucifixion of Jesus, and they are demonstrated on the Shroud, then that may be enough to sway someone in favour of authenticity, even though they might also be consistent with a painted image and pipetted blood.

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.
- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.
- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.
- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.
- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.
- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.
- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.
- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.
- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.
- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.
- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

You don't have any eyewitnesses nor any fingerprints. Furthermore, presence of blood does not support a 2000 year old cloth. Case dismissed.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.
- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.
- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.
- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.
- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.
- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

What are you talking about? "The accused was scene at the vicinity of the crime"? The shroud was never seen until around 1300 AD. There's no fingerprints.

And no, blood on the shroud has no bearing on the age. You haven't answered my question: assuming there is blood on the shroud, how can you know that the shroud was not just the burial cloth for someone who died 700 years ago?

 

[Mojo]

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.

You have consistently failed to provide any evidence for authenticity. Could that consistency be evidence for something?

- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused. Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.

Was the CIQ seen in the vicinity of Christ's body?

- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt -- but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

Do you have any evidence to connect the CIQ with Christ's burial? His fingerprints on it, perhaps? DNA from a Holy Hairbrush?

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.
- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.

What evidence can you provide that strengthens the probability of authenticity?

- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.

How? You have completely failed to support this assertion.

- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

Until you have both:

a) established that the stains are blood and;
b) established that this is evidence for authenticity,

this is irrelevant.

 

[Mojo]

You don't have any eyewitnesses nor any fingerprints.

Indeed, all the circumstantial evidence points to a medieval origin.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of completely inappropriate courtroom case metaphor>
- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

This would be so if (and ONLY if) blood had only been available come in contact with cloth in the first Century C.E.

You continue to ignore the demonstrable fact that human blood has been available wherever (and whenever) there have been humans. The presence of actual human blood on the CIQ, even if conclusively demonstrated, would not address, or affect, in any way, the age of the manifestly medieval bit of linen.

- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

You continue to ignore the fact that old bloodstains are not, in fact, red at all, but deep-brown-to-black (and they get darker as they get older). The red color argues against the stains on the CIQ being actual blood.

You also seem to be conveniently overlooking this, still.

I remain,

Patiently yours &ct.

ETA: Not to mention..."viewers"? Really?

 

[abaddon]

This would be so if (and ONLY if) blood had only been available come in contact with cloth in the first Century C.E.

I would have used "iff" but jabba would simply think it was a typo.

 

[Mojo]

You continue to ignore the fact that old bloodstains are not, in fact, red at all, but deep-brown-to-black (and they get darker as they get older). The red color argues against the stains on the CIQ being actual blood.

If the stains are blood and still red, then it's a miracle!

 

[abaddon]

Hugh,

Now that Hugh has rejoined onto the thread you have chosen to glom onto Hugh.

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.

So why are you being inconsistent?

- That the accused was seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder does support the guilt of the accused.

I refer you once again to the quote...

Interrogation Cop: I can put you in Queens on the night of the hijacking.
Hockney: Really? I live in Queens. Did you put that together yourself, Einstein? What, do you got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this?

Does the whole correlation does not equal causation thing entirely pass you by somehow?

Obviously, it doesn't prove anything -- numerous others were also seen in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the latter's murder -- but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.

Perhaps you should read what you post before you post it. Or stop watching the various flavours of CSI.

- If the fingerprints of the accused were found on the murder weapon, that would also be supportive of the accused's guilt --

Nope.

but, dependent upon other circumstances, probably more supportive.

Nope. Put your TV in the bin. That is not how the real world works.

- And agreed, while both pieces of evidence are consistent with guilt of the accused, they are also consistent with innocence of the accused -- neither piece of evidence eliminates his innocence.

Stil not on a TV show. Sorry.

- What matters re the direction of the support (not the amount of the support) is which side of the argument is strengthened by the information. In the murder example, neither piece of evidence strengthens the probability of the accused's innocence; but, both pieces strengthen the probability of his guilt.

Here is what I find odd. You claim that it does in the sole case of the CIQ. Why?

- Re our blood issue, the stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.

Bollocks. Humans have been bleeding for hundreds of thousands of years and using blood as an artistic medium for the same time.

- I think that the slight support provided simply by the stains being real blood would be important to my case because of certain reported characteristics of the stains. The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support. One of those characteristics being the red color (which I still think is important), but there are several more I'll be reminding viewers of.

- Thanks.

Nope. You are simply making that up out of whole cloth (ha ha).

 

[JayUtah]

I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence.

No. You gave up on trying to argue a consilient body of evidence.

...but it does "support" the guilt of the accused.

Asked and answered. You are still confused about the difference between something being necessary to a proof and something being sufficient to a proof. Since I have written about that extensively, please explain to the readers here why you are wasting their time by ignoring it and continuing in this well-established fallacy.

[T]he [blood] stains simply being blood does not strengthen the probability of the inauthentic side, but it does (slightly) strengthen the probability of the authentic side.

No. Once again your courtroom analogy fails, because courts find defendants "not guilty," not "innocent." They properly formulate the dichotomy, whereas you in your claims regarding the shroud do not.

As belabored, you are equivocating the notion of "authenticity" to mean different things at different times in your argument, thereby masking the circularity in it.

The reported characteristics of the stains, I think, provide significant support.

They absolutely do not, for exactly the reason that you do not understand what constitutes necessity and sufficiency in a proof.

We are now concluding the second full week of your wallowing in a willful disregard of the explanations given to you. Will you finally condescend to read what people are writing here, or will we be treated to another full week of this evasion?

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>
We are now concluding the second full week of your wallowing in a willful disregard of the explanations given to you. Will you finally condescend to read what people are writing here, or will we be treated to another full week of this evasion?

That hamster wheel has turned many times. I see no reason that there will not be yet another turn.

Jabba has stated in one or other of the iterations of this thread that his faith hangs by the slender thread of authenticity of the shroud. Genuine, or dishonest? At this point I cannot say.

What I can say is that if ones faith in whatever god hinges on a piece of cloth which is demonstrably not connected in any way to any deity, then one should examine one's belief carefully.

 

[jond]

If the stains are blood and still red, then it's a miracle!

And this is where he's been trying to get for all this time.