Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 can't believe you've been sitting on this information all this time! Why didn't you post it ages ago? It could have really contributed to the conversation. I find your hoarding of this information irresponsible. You had access to this precious information, and you kept it to yourself. There's absolutely no way we could have found it for ourselves. It's not as if there's some way to search the Internet. Let us catch up with you, Slowvehicle.
 
Lucian said:
I can't believe you've been sitting on this information all this time! Why didn't you post it ages ago? It could have really contributed to the conversation. I find your hoarding of this information irresponsible. You had access to this precious information, and you kept it to yourself. There's absolutely no way we could have found it for ourselves. It's not as if there's some way to search the Internet. Let us catch up with you, Slowvehicle.
Click to expand...

I am contrite. I will do better. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?
 
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...

Jabba: Provide EVIDENCE that there was a patch. All else is conjecture, and thus waste of time.

Hans
 
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...
Modern scientists have been unable to replicate the creation of an invisible/near-invisible patch on a cloth where they can perfectly match up the continued banding. Therefore, this would have been impossible for medieval artisans to do (your logic, Jabba).

Suggesting that medieval artisans had the ability to do this without UV and x-ray instrumentation with which to observe the banding and thus match it up perfectly is phenomenally ridiculous. Claiming that "something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding" is disingenuous on an entirely different level, even for you, Jabba.

QUESTION:
If this supposed patch cannot be seen, even blending in perfectly with the banding, then how do you know there is a patch there in the first place? How do you know that there aren't invisible patches all over the shroud? With this reasoning, no matter where on the shroud any future samples are cut for any future dating procedures, you can retroactively claim that it was a patch when it inevitably gives a date that you don't approve of. How convenient!
 
Actually, PizzaTheHutt, you have it exactly backward. The small sample that was taken was all that was left of the original shroud. ALL the rest of it is patching. More amazingly, the patches were all created by Jebus' friends and, miraculously, all fit together perfectly and with the tiny piece that was left in the 1300s. See, if they had sampled in any other area of the shroud, they would have gotten the age "right".

There, take that, you sciency types.
 
PizzaTheHutt said:
Modern scientists have been unable to replicate the creation of an invisible/near-invisible patch on a cloth where they can perfectly match up the continued banding. Therefore, this would have been impossible for medieval artisans to do (your logic, Jabba).

Suggesting that medieval artisans had the ability to do this without UV and x-ray instrumentation with which to observe the banding and thus match it up perfectly is phenomenally ridiculous. Claiming that "something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding" is disingenuous on an entirely different level, even for you, Jabba.

QUESTION:
If this supposed patch cannot be seen, even blending in perfectly with the banding, then how do you know there is a patch there in the first place? How do you know that there aren't invisible patches all over the shroud? With this reasoning, no matter where on the shroud any future samples are cut for any future dating procedures, you can retroactively claim that it was a patch when it inevitably gives a date that you don't approve of. How convenient!
Click to expand...


This is exactly the kind of logically gruesome palaver we have been seeing from Jabba for 3.5 years. He routinely contradicts himself, and demonstrates no understanding of the issues, nor of the concept of critical thinking.
 
PizzaTheHutt said:
<snip>

QUESTION:
If this supposed patch cannot be seen, even blending in perfectly with the banding, then how do you know there is a patch there in the first place? How do you know that there aren't invisible patches all over the shroud? With this reasoning, no matter where on the shroud any future samples are cut for any future dating procedures, you can retroactively claim that it was a patch when it inevitably gives a date that you don't approve of. How convenient!
Click to expand...

Easy. The shroud is all patch.
 
I again suggest taking the whole damned CIQ as a sample. Then we'll know how old it is.

First we have to retrieve all of STURP's sticky-tape samples for comparison. Unless they're hiding something, they will cooperate. What is STURP trying to hide, anyway?
 
I for one am finding this thread fascinating. It is like a psychological study to observe the measures one will take to avoid answering questions and dealing with facts.

I personally think the shroud is an interesting historical object, not as cool as some of the reliquaries out there, shaped like a foot for example, but interesting none the less. Studies seem to have confirmed beyond any doubt that it is not the genuine article though. 'Genuine' of course assuming there even was a Jesus.
And frankly I don't understand the obsession with wanting it to be 'real'. Faith doesn't require evidence, why hamstring yourself with attachment to such an object?
 
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...

I see that word "if" a lot with regard to this patch. Jabba, is there a patch or not? If yes, what is the evidence for it?
 
The Sparrow said:
And frankly I don't understand the obsession with wanting it to be 'real'. Faith doesn't require evidence, why hamstring yourself with attachment to such an object?
Click to expand...

What about "if you can hold an absurd belief against others that despise it you'll have a whole treasure of confirmed beliefs (those which are less absurd and/or less contested)". It's the at-least-God-is-100%-guaranteed approach.

By the way, this thread exists just to prove that the only goal of this website is its membership agreement. The shroud thingy is circumstantial.
 
Jabba's email to Dan Porter has been posted to Shroudstory.com if anyone is interested. Charles Freeman and Hugh Farey took Jabba's contentions to task. I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn what's going on over there, but Jabba's post did inspire a number of replies.
 
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