Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[MRC_Hans]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

This is simply too silly.

Hans

 

[abaddon]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

By definition, near-invisible means visible. Your claim is now that there is a visible reweave which amazingly nobody has ever noticed to this very day.

Using weasel words does not cast your so-called argument in any better light.

 

[John Jones]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

You no longer have anything to contribute to this thread except idiotic statements, do you?

 

[aleCcowaN]

If I were given to speculation, I would guess that it is more emotionally satisfying to just write-off science and logic as tools of nefarious, incompetent liars.

Such a metaphorical rabbit punch would make me the "best man in this fight".

I have thought a good reply following this, but it required coherence, a quality shrouders (how to call the Jabba-like type?) haven't in spades -nor in toothpicks-.

Anyway I think Jabba is trying to shroud science out of the Shroud, not out of the universe. But again ... coherence, is it there?

 

[Mojo]

- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

How do you distinguish between an invisible reweave and a near-invisible reweave that cannot be seen?

 

[John Jones]

I have thought a good reply following this, but it required coherence, a quality shrouders (how to call the Jabba-like type?) haven't in spades -nor in toothpicks-.

Anyway I think Jabba is trying to shroud science out of the Shroud, not out of the universe. But again ... coherence, is it there?

Special Pleading? The shroud is authentic just because it is.

He's fallen back on special pleading before.

 

[aleCcowaN]

By definition, near-invisible means visible. Your claim is now that there is a visible reweave which amazingly nobody has ever noticed to this very day.

Using weasel words does not cast your so-called argument in any better light.

What Jabba says is probably that the reweave conveniently was in the very portions that were incinerated to make the carbon test. A convenient theory: there was a mix of Roman an renaissance fibres with badly washed modern grime what gave the "false" dating.

I'm saying this because I think Jabba can do better so I'm incline to provide him with hypothesis that are less silly than the usual ones he subscribes to and the puerile rehashing he resorts to on a regular basis.

 

[abaddon]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

By the way Jabba, you are breaking your own rules for "effective debate" once again.

Only one issue at a time, remember?

First, you have to demonstrate the existence of this "near-invisible reweave".
Once you have done that the discussion can move along to the next issue. You certainly do not get to sneak it in as a given, that would be dishonest thing to do, wouldn't you think?

 

[abaddon]

What Jabba says is probably that the reweave conveniently was in the very portions that were incinerated to make the carbon test. A convenient theory: there was a mix of Roman an renaissance fibres with badly washed modern grime what gave the "false" dating.

That thought did occur.

I'm saying this because I think Jabba can do better so I'm incline to provide him with hypothesis that are less silly than the usual ones he subscribes to and the puerile rehashing he resorts to on a regular basis.

Oh, I have a story that reconciles the evidence with authenticity.
It's pure fantasy, of course and I will not hand it to Jabba on a plate because I know he would latch onto it.

 

[Craig4]

Jabba, so your hypothesis is that the nuns did a complete hack job on repairs elsewhere on the shroud but went all out with a nearly invisible repair on the edge of the cloth?

 

[ferd burfle]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.

Jabba, do you realize how incrediby desperate that sounds?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Oh, I have a story that reconciles the evidence with authenticity.
It's pure fantasy, of course and I will not hand it to Jabba on a plate because I know he would latch onto it.

On the contrary, I think we should be better than Jabba in his side of the divide with a warning to the gullible. Though the guys who invented the crop circles achieved nothing with their prank.

 

[John Jones]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

Imagine how many permutations of the same worthless argument a willfully ignorant person could make by randomly inserting the word "near" or "nearly" .


Now back to SlowVehicle's question about your conflicting claims that the presence of iron and absence of iron both support authenticity.

(SlowVehicle, if I have misstated your question, please correct me)

 

[John Jones]

Jabba, so your hypothesis is that the nuns did a complete hack job on repairs elsewhere on the shroud but went all out with a nearly invisible repair on the edge of the cloth?

Headshot!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

How is it that you continue to ignore this source?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

 

[Slowvehicle]

Imagine how many permutations of the same worthless argument a willfully ignorant person could make by randomly inserting the word "near" or "nearly" .


Now back to SlowVehicle's question about your conflicting claims that the presence of iron and absence of iron both support authenticity.

(SlowVehicle, if I have misstated your question, please correct me)

Spot on. In one place, Mr. Savage has presented that arguements that claim that the presence of Iron(III) oxide indicates "authenticity"; in another, that the absence of Iron(III) oxide does so.

I would love to have it explained which it really is...

 

[aleCcowaN]

I would love to have it explained which it really is...

Not only God has multiple hypostases. For Muslims iron oxide is unique, and I have to agree with them on that.

 

[Craig4]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

How is it that you continue to ignore this source?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

The following to be read in a "Valley Girl" voice for full impact.

Uh because it's wrong. Duh. It doesn't say what I want.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The following to read in a "Valley Girl" voice for full impact.

Uh because it's wrong. Duh. It doesn't say what I want.

Totally. As if!

 

[John Jones]

DING DING DING.

Jabba loses yet another round in this gruesome, endless, one-sided "fight".

He's stepping in post-holes, ladies and gentlemen. He can't defend against the weakest of jabs.

An ISF referee would call this "fight" a TKO.
An ISF boxing commission would revoke Jabba's license to "fight".