Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kid Eager said:
Thank you for your responses, as shallow as they are.
Click to expand...

You ignore my response which was even more shallow. This way we can't have a productive debate

Kid Eager said:
Is it agreed that chickens as a concept exist in the minds of humans?
Click to expand...

That premise would be along the lines of this thread if yrreg were the stubborn champion here and his logic the only element available. But the reality of Jabba's image shown on the Magic Shroud™ makes conceptualizing chickens immaterial.
 
Even if, IF the shroud was some sort of bloodstained 'imprint' of a man crucified in the 1st century,
how do we then connect it to the historical Jesus?
 
catsmate said:
Start with showing there was a historical Jesus?
Click to expand...

Aye! It's true I also allowed for the sake of argument, that rather substantial assumption.

And in all fairness, there may have been some dude called Jesus preaching some wild ideas, but that don't mean
a) he was the son of God
b) there is a God
c) he was crucified
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"

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...

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, 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!
Click to expand...
Monza,
1. It's just saying that if repairers could actually get away with near-invisible repair otherwise, they could probably get away with it re the banding also. But so far,
2. Does sound like there would be nothing deliberate about it -- which seems to obviate John's suggestion.

- I just asked John if he has a comeback...
- You brought up other sub-issues. I'll try to deal with them next unless you direct me otherwise.
 
Jabba is complaining over at shroudstory that we won't follow his ridiculous rules. No mention of the number of times he's reneged on his commitment to follow HIS rules.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
1. It's just saying that if repairers could actually get away with near-invisible repair otherwise, they could probably get away with it re the banding also. But so far,
2. Does sound like there would be nothing deliberate about it -- which seems to obviate John's suggestion.

- I just asked John if he has a comeback...
- You brought up other sub-issues. I'll try to deal with them next unless you direct me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you have no evidence for invisible or near-invisible repairs.

You have no evidence that the sample was not representative of the 'shroud' as a whole, so that leaves the carbon dating result as valid.
 
Filippo Lippi said:
Jabba is complaining over at shroudstory that we won't follow his ridiculous rules. No mention of the number of times he's reneged on his commitment to follow HIS rules.
Click to expand...
This is astounding.

First, the author admits that there is no reweave or invisible or near-invisible patch. Second, he goes on to a version of Quantum Jesus to explain the C14 dating not only of the SoT but of the Oviedum. And in the middle of all that he misstates the certainty/uncertainty of the three laboratory age spread.
 
Garrette said:
This is astounding.

First, the author admits that there is no reweave or invisible or near-invisible patch. Second, he goes on to a version of Quantum Jesus to explain the C14 dating not only of the SoT but of the Oviedum. And in the middle of all that he misstates the certainty/uncertainty of the three laboratory age spread.
Click to expand...

I was browsing that and, indeed, it's a much more coherent and honest story than that of Jabba's.
 
Garrette said:
This is astounding.

First, the author admits that there is no reweave or invisible or near-invisible patch. Second, he goes on to a version of Quantum Jesus to explain the C14 dating not only of the SoT but of the Oviedum. And in the middle of all that he misstates the certainty/uncertainty of the three laboratory age spread.
Click to expand...


I liike that he claims the 14C date was skewed by in influx of neutrons from the corpse that converted 14N to 14C. Linen is essentially cellulose or CHO(n) where (n) is a large integer. Would there have been enough nitrogen in the fabric to create the 14C by neutron activation of 14N? Is there any evidence that this elevated neutron flux existed? Why are no other elements on the shroud transmutated?
 
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