Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Jabba
- Here's something I received on Dan's blog.
http://www.cirac.org/shroud/Discussi...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.

This is exactly what people have said of Jabba's "logic" from the beginning of this thread:
1.The Shroud is authentic.
2. So any evidence that you present against it being authentic must be wrong.
3. If the evidence presented against it being authentic is wrong it must be authentic.

Jabba appears to be perfectly satisfied with this logic and views his job as trying to create some sort of doubt, any little bit of doubt, about any and all of the large amounts of evidence that the Shroud is not authentic. The evidence must be wrong, so Jabba's goal is to figure out why, no matter how implausibly. Making up stuff is fine ("if the goal was to make an invisible patch then the patch would be invisible, right?").

What intrigues me is that he can't (or claims to not) understand that even if all the evidence against authenticity is somehow wrong, he would still need to present evidence that it is authentic. That concept isn't part of his "logic" which begins with the idea that it is authentic.

It is also interesting what happens when Jabba is confronted by a piece of evidence, such as the 14C dating, that he can't even make up any reason to deny- he has to fall back on this kind of logic: "Yes, the piece dated makes it clear that the Shroud is not authentic, and the piece could not have been from a visible patch, or an invisible patch, so it must have been from a nearly invisible patch (?) that nonetheless the scientists and religious figures who handled it did not see. And if the unbroken weave rules out even a nearly invisible patch than something else must have happened to give the false date. Simple."

So odd. Especially since this whole useless exercise could be avoided by the simple belief on Jabba's part that given Christ's resurrection was a miracle, so must be the Shroud and its scientific properties are meaningless.
 
Last edited:
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...


Hi Jabba,

Have you read the quote you provided above? I'm trying to figure out what you think it means. I'll tell you what I read; it merely states that if someone wanted to make something invisible, then it would (by definition) be invisible.

However, no where is any information offered as to why such a repair would be performed, if such a repair was even done, or how such a repair is even possible. All this quote says is that no evidence is present if the goal is to avoid leaving evidence. In short, it is useless and offers no value to the discussion.

The banding was unknown until recently so it would have been impossible for any medieval craftsman to even attempt to avoid disrupting it. Even now, is there any scrap of evidence that such a repair is even possible?


Important information here!
 
Giordano said:
This is exactly what people have said of Jabba's "logic" from the beginning of this thread:
1.The Shroud is authentic.
2. So any evidence that you present against it being authentic must be wrong.
3. If the evidence presented against it being authentic is wrong it must be authentic.
Click to expand...


Every article I can remember reading on the Institute for Creation Research site was based on false dichotomies and ended with a blurb stating, in effect, "and even if our science is wrong, our conslusion is still right because our god is infallible".
 
Monza said:
Hi Jabba,

Have you read the quote you provided above? I'm trying to figure out what you think it means. I'll tell you what I read; it merely states that if someone wanted to make something invisible, then it would (by definition) be invisible.

However, no where is any information offered as to why such a repair would be performed,
Click to expand...

Aside from everything else, this one always gets me.

There is a claim that in 1300 AD or after, someone repaired a random, out of the way corner of the shroud using a technique that is so good that it not only is invisible to the eye, but it didn't disrupt an optical pattern that couldn't be seen at the time and no one knew existed.

YET years later (or not), problems encountered in the middle of the image were clumsily patched in obvious ways to anyone looking at it. It defies any explanation.
 
"Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding."

If the banding is uninterrupted and continuous, then how can anyone tell that something was done to it? These people have amazingly derived from the evidence the exact opposite conclusion that the continuous banding implies. The continuous banding proves that nothing was done in that area of the cloth. It does NOT imply that something was done. This is getting beyond ridiculous.
 
pgwenthold said:
Aside from everything else, this one always gets me.

There is a claim that in 1300 AD or after, someone repaired a random, out of the way corner of the shroud using a technique that is so good that it not only is invisible to the eye, but it didn't disrupt an optical pattern that couldn't be seen at the time and no one knew existed.

YET years later (or not), problems encountered in the middle of the image were clumsily patched in obvious ways to anyone looking at it. It defies any explanation.
Click to expand...
Another part of the logic: you can't prove the Shroud too young to be authentic because any part of the Shroud you sample, including portions of the core image that the Church would never allow to be cut, might be part of an invisible patch. And of course patches to the key image portions would be made even more invisibly than the peripheral region that was tested here.
 
Another part of the "logic": propose something not true about the Shroud- "There are truly invisible patches." Then state that the Shroud must be authentic because even modern science could not produce that impossible property.
 
Belz... said:
If the patch is invisible and undetectable, then the C14 testing on it should return the same date as the rest of the shroud.
Click to expand...

You are really messing up my "logic" here. Okay, the patch is invisible or nearly so (?) and therefore had to be made up of the same fabric from the rest of the Shroud. But the sample from the "patch" was the wrong date for an authentic Shroud so, um, sewing on or handling the invisible patch somehow (?) changed its date by the isotope approach.... No, I don't really like that explanation. I can't find my research notes right now but somehow I remember someone explained that. I'll be back.
 
Giordano said:
You are really messing up my "logic" here. Okay, the patch is invisible or nearly so (?) and therefore had to be made up of the same fabric from the rest of the Shroud. But the sample from the "patch" was the wrong date for an authentic Shroud so, um, sewing on or handling the invisible patch somehow (?) changed its date by the isotope approach.... No, I don't really like that explanation. I can't find my research notes right now but somehow I remember someone explained that. I'll be back.
Click to expand...

You got that right: the patch is invisible precisely because there's no visible or detectable difference between it and the surrounding shroud. Ergo, it should have the same age. Otherwise it's not undetectable.
 
PizzaTheHutt said:
"Whatever, it appears that something was done to the sample that did not obviously affect the continued banding."

If the banding is uninterrupted and continuous, then how can anyone tell that something was done to it? These people have amazingly derived from the evidence the exact opposite conclusion that the continuous banding implies. The continuous banding proves that nothing was done in that area of the cloth. It does NOT imply that something was done. This is getting beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

We're back to the balance:

On one side, the evidence for the invisible patch. On the other side, the evidence against.

Continuous banding is evidence against a patch. But hey, if you can come up with a way to ignore that evidence, it tips the scales toward the evidence for the patch, right?

Of course the problem is 1) you can't just assert that it doesn't count as evidence and therefore take it away, and, more importantly, 2) since there is NOTHING in the pan with the evidence FOR an invisible patch, taking one thing away from the other side doesn't move the balance at all
 
pgwenthold said:
We're back to the balance:

On one side, the evidence for the invisible patch. On the other side, the evidence against.

Continuous banding is evidence against a patch. But hey, if you can come up with a way to ignore that evidence, it tips the scales toward the evidence for the patch, right?

Of course the problem is 1) you can't just assert that it doesn't count as evidence and therefore take it away, and, more importantly, 2) since there is NOTHING in the pan with the evidence FOR an invisible patch, taking one thing away from the other side doesn't move the balance at all
Click to expand...

I'm sorry--I should have provided this link earlier:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/
 
pgwenthold said:
We're back to the balance:

On one side, the evidence for the invisible patch. On the other side, the evidence against.

Continuous banding is evidence against a patch. But hey, if you can come up with a way to ignore that evidence, it tips the scales toward the evidence for the patch, right?

Of course the problem is 1) you can't just assert that it doesn't count as evidence and therefore take it away, and, more importantly, 2) since there is NOTHING in the pan with the evidence FOR an invisible patch, taking one thing away from the other side doesn't move the balance at all
Click to expand...

Interestingly the current vacuum on the pro-authenticity pan compared to nothing but air on the anti-authenticity pan would still move the balance toward the anti-authenticity side.

Oh wait- I just got a phone call from my friend in my "don't post in this thread" 12-step program. He says that I am falling off the wagon and that I must return to abstinence. Bye!
 
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