Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding
Click to expand...


No, it appears that nothing was done to the sample. And also that you are begging the question again.
 
Jabba and others,

Would someone please tell me what the image of a man on the shroud is physically composed of? The cloth that has the image is darker in shade than the rest of the shroud that does not have the image.

I have heard from skeptics that the image is made of red ochre, while I have heard supporters of the idea of its miraculous creation accept that there is red ochre on the cloth, but they make the excuse that the red ochre is from the practice in medieval times of placing artificial recreations of the shroud painted with red ochre on top of the original shroud in order to bless the copies. By placing cloth with red ochre on top of the original shroud with the original image, the red ochre rubbed off onto the original shroud.

Perhaps other supporters of the shroud's miraculousness claim that the shroud does not have significant red ochre on it. I read that the image itself is extremely shallow in depth in the linen fibers.

It was in response to the claim by Paolo Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s government-run ENEA research institute that the image was too superficial, allegedly as thin as 200nm to be explainable with known science,
Click to expand...
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

If however the image is some kind of "scorch" from intense light or heated object and there is no difference in composition between the fibers with the image and those without, doesn't it mean that there would be a change in the fibers of the affected linen fibers that could be tested to show that it was a "scorch"?

So what is the image on the shroud physically composed of?
 
Jabba said:
- Here's something I received on Dan's blog.
http://www.cirac.org/shroud/Discussion/MGS-CESS-36-42.htm.

- Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding
- A suggestion offered by John Klotz, author of The Coming of the Quantum Christ: If the goal of those that repaired the corner was an invisible repair that they would per force have replicated the banding where necessary.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Unsurprisingly, you continue to work from your assumed consequent. There is no evidence, none, of any kind of repair, "some patching", or adulteration of any kind in the sampled corner.

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

The only reason you cling to the idea is that you have already decided, ad hoc, that the 14C dating is "wrong".

Do consider reading, absorbing, and responding to, this:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
 
Jabba said:
- Here's something I received on Dan's blog.
http://www.cirac.org/shroud/Discussion/MGS-CESS-36-42.htm.

- Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding
- A suggestion offered by John Klotz, author of The Coming of the Quantum Christ: If the goal of those that repaired the corner was an invisible repair that they would per force have replicated the banding where necessary.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage:

Perhaps you could address how the artist(s) responsible for the representation image on the sized and gessoed surface of the CIQ could not have reproduced what it pleases you to call "serum retraction rings", because they do not show under visible light (which, in your mind, supports "authenticity"), but must have reproduced the loom artifacts you are calling "banding", which also do not show under visible light?

It's "Srhoudinger's Cat", all over again...

Do consider not continuing in your rudeness; do consider actually responding to my posts this morning, there's a lad.
 
Jabba said:
- Here's something I received on Dan's blog.
http://www.cirac.org/shroud/Discussion/MGS-CESS-36-42.htm.

- Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding
- A suggestion offered by John Klotz, author of The Coming of the Quantum Christ: If the goal of those that repaired the corner was an invisible repair that they would per force have replicated the banding where necessary.
Click to expand...

"Klotz"? how apropo.

Anyway, we are are the way back to "hovering, radioactive Jebus" because quantum. And medieval UV, IR and X-ray technology.
 
abaddon said:
"Klotz"? how apropo.

Anyway, we are are the way back to "hovering, radioactive Jebus" because quantum. And medieval UV, IR and X-ray technology.
Click to expand...

...which could not have faked the "serum retraction rings", but must have repaired the loom artifacts...

It's special pleading, all the way down.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Unsurprisingly, you continue to work from your assumed consequent. There is no evidence, none, of any kind of repair, "some patching", or adulteration of any kind in the sampled corner.

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

The only reason you cling to the idea is that you have already decided, ad hoc, that the 14C dating is "wrong".

Do consider reading, absorbing, and responding to, this:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
Click to expand...

It's a shame, isn't it, that there is nothing online where Jabba could read about this?
 
rakovsky said:
Jabba and others,

Would someone please tell me what the image of a man on the shroud is physically composed of? The cloth that has the image is darker in shade than the rest of the shroud that does not have the image.

I have heard from skeptics that the image is made of red ochre, while I have heard supporters of the idea of its miraculous creation accept that there is red ochre on the cloth, but they make the excuse that the red ochre is from the practice in medieval times of placing artificial recreations of the shroud painted with red ochre on top of the original shroud in order to bless the copies. By placing cloth with red ochre on top of the original shroud with the original image, the red ochre rubbed off onto the original shroud.

Perhaps other supporters of the shroud's miraculousness claim that the shroud does not have significant red ochre on it. I read that the image itself is extremely shallow in depth in the linen fibers.


https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

If however the image is some kind of "scorch" from intense light or heated object and there is no difference in composition between the fibers with the image and those without, doesn't it mean that there would be a change in the fibers of the affected linen fibers that could be tested to show that it was a "scorch"?

So what is the image on the shroud physically composed of?
Click to expand...

Jabba doesn't answer questions or reply to posts that would require him to make any effort.
 
 
Slowvehicle said:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

This Link?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
Click to expand...
I.m sorry, but were you attempting to indicate something? You know I only refuse to deal with one link at a time, right? After all, it is the only effective way to proceed, right?

Now that I have summarily dismissed 6 of your 7 links, I shall now proceed to deal with the single one link I have arbitrarily selected as worthy of attention, by ignoring it.
 
abaddon said:
I.m sorry, but were you attempting to indicate something? You know I only refuse to deal with one link at a time, right? After all, it is the only effective way to proceed, right?

Now that I have summarily dismissed 6 of your 7 links, I shall now proceed to deal with the single one link I have arbitrarily selected as worthy of attention, by ignoring it.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
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