Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

MRC_Hans said:
Jabba, have you given up?

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- No. I'm having trouble finding the stuff I'm looking for re the implications of banding re the repair hypothesis.
- Not to worry, I'll be back.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- No. I'm having trouble finding the stuff I'm looking for re the implications of banding re the repair hypothesis.
- Not to worry, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Just make something up, then say it supports your position. Maybe some quantum would help?
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- No. I'm having trouble finding the stuff I'm looking for re the implications of banding re the repair hypothesis.
- Not to worry, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's been discredited a half-dozen times over the last 3+ years. You don't want to go through the embarrassment again, do you?
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- No. I'm having trouble finding the stuff I'm looking for re the implications of banding re the repair hypothesis.
- Not to worry, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Hi Jabba,

The topic of banding/repairs has been discussed multiple times over the years in these threads. One of those conversations took place towards the end of the first incarnation of this thread and continued into the beginning of part 2. Perhaps that will refresh your memory.

You may need to go back a few pages or forward a few pages, but if memory servers there are plenty of images, some of which you yourself marked up, showing the banding on the backing cloth and not showing any evidence of any sort of patching or repairs.

(I can't see most images from my work computer, so I'm afraid I can't do a better job of linking you directly to the posts with images.)
 
One begins to wonder whether, at this point, no new refutations are needed; whether it will suffice simply to reference existing rebuttals already made previously in these threads.
 
Ooh. Like this:?

Jabba, Thread one. Message 783-787?

And,

Jabba, Thread 4, message 751 et. al.

Or even,

Jabba, Thread three, messages 230-270, 253-2679, and thread 4, messages 1 to 532.
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

- This is something I'm about to send to Dan Porter. I just want to make sure that my description of your consensus opinion about the implications of banding upon the claim that there has been significant repair on the sample is correct and fair.

I’m debating the Shroud with the skeptics at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299015. If you haven’t noticed me on Dan’s blog before, I’ve been doing this for a long time (over 3 years). We’re now on our 4th sub-thread, and ‘going strong’ (17,000 replies, and 788,000 visits altogether) – though, getting nowhere…
No one I’ve told about my hobby can understand my persistence -- and really, neither can I -- but, for some reason, I’m enjoying myself, and still have hopes. Maybe it has something to do with trying to love my enemies… I don’t know.
But then, my memory is easing down that slippery slope, and I could use a lot of help…

I’m trying to address one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time (there must be thousands of them) with the skeptics, and feel like I’m finally getting somewhere -- very slowly. I’ve done a lot of reading and studying about the shroud over the past 35 years, but my memory for specifics has never been that good (I can’t tell a joke), and as my memory of generalities gets worse, so does my memory for specifics, only worse.
But mostly, I haven’t done a good job of keeping track of citations. There’s more to this story, but I’ll spare you the details and just say that I’m looking for some needles in a lot of haystacks -- and need some help from people who have kept better track of the same, and more, needles. This blog seems full of such people, and if I can just interest you guys in my plight, I’m sure that I can get a lot of help -- and gain some real speed and substance when answering the skeptics.
Without further ado, here’s my first question: my opponents claim that the banding proves that there has been no significant repair on the sample. What’s our best argument(s) otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
...my opponents claim that the banding proves that there has been no repair.
Click to expand...


The general position is rather better expressed only a few posts up the page:

Tomboy said:
Hi Jabba,

The topic of banding/repairs has been discussed multiple times over the years in these threads. One of those conversations took place towards the end of the first incarnation of this thread and continued into the beginning of part 2. Perhaps that will refresh your memory.

You may need to go back a few pages or forward a few pages, but if memory servers there are plenty of images, some of which you yourself marked up, showing the banding on the backing cloth and not showing any evidence of any sort of patching or repairs.
Click to expand...


There is no need to prove that there has been no repair. The repair is your claim, so you need to provide evidence that there has been a repair.
 
Jabba said:
- This is something I'm about to send to Dan Porter. I just want to make sure that my description of your consensus opinion about the implications of banding upon the claim that there has been significant repair on the sample is correct and fair.
Click to expand...

Why did you suddenly abandon the alleged presence of blood?
 
Jabba said:
- This is something I'm about to send to Dan Porter. I just want to make sure that my description of your consensus opinion about the implications of banding upon the claim that there has been significant repair on the sample is correct and fair.

I’m debating the Shroud with the skeptics at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299015. If you haven’t noticed me on Dan’s blog before, I’ve been doing this for a long time (over 3 years). We’re now on our 4th sub-thread, and ‘going strong’ (17,000 replies, and 788,000 visits altogether) – though, getting nowhere…
No one I’ve told about my hobby can understand my persistence -- and really, neither can I -- but, for some reason, I’m enjoying myself, and still have hopes. Maybe it has something to do with trying to love my enemies… I don’t know.
But then, my memory is easing down that slippery slope, and I could use a lot of help…

I’m trying to address one sub-sub-etc-issue at a time (there must be thousands of them) with the skeptics, and feel like I’m finally getting somewhere -- very slowly. I’ve done a lot of reading and studying about the shroud over the past 35 years, but my memory for specifics has never been that good (I can’t tell a joke), and as my memory of generalities gets worse, so does my memory for specifics, only worse.
But mostly, I haven’t done a good job of keeping track of citations. There’s more to this story, but I’ll spare you the details and just say that I’m looking for some needles in a lot of haystacks -- and need some help from people who have kept better track of the same, and more, needles. This blog seems full of such people, and if I can just interest you guys in my plight, I’m sure that I can get a lot of help -- and gain some real speed and substance when answering the skeptics.
Without further ado, here’s my first question: my opponents claim that the banding proves that there has been no significant repair on the sample. What’s our best argument(s) otherwise?
Click to expand...

:sdl::sdl::dl::dl::big::crazy::big::dl::dl::sdl: :sdl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom