Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- From everything I've read, the details of the image and apparent blood stains are atypical, but in total agreement with the Bible description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion: "crown of thorns," spear wound in the side, no broken bones, over a hundred scourge wounds by Roman flagrums (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that the number of times to be flogged was very specifically prescribed, was based upon the "nationality" and crimes of the victim, and the number of scourge wounds on this body fit with Jesus' nationality and crimes).

This is not evidence of anything except good work by the artist who painted the shroud.

Originally Posted by Jabba

The fiber and weave of the Shroud also fit with the apparent status of Joseph of Arimathea, the person (according to the Bible) responsible for Jesus' burial.

Evidence for this assertion?

Originally Posted by Jabba

Also, the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today. The apparent blood stains were not affected by the removal.

Because they were painted onto the cloth............
You have provided no evidence for your assertion that "the removal should have required a method unavailable at the time -- and probably, still unavailable today"

You have no evidence for the existence of blood except the dubious and disputed tests of Adler and Bollone, neither of who eliminated (or even attempted to) contamination. Also neither checked their test methodology against the dyes on the cloth to eliminate false positives.

You have shown no reason to doubt the validity of the radiocarbon testing, the microscopical examination of the fibres or any of the other points I raised previously.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Well anything might be wrong lol.

But what you are now implying is that because two or more different things are both possible, it means they are all equally likely!

On that basis you’d be arguing that it's as likely as not that that the earth is only 6000 years old and that science has made a series of mistakes in thinking that all the vast mass of evidence conclusively points to a date around 4.5 billion years old.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

For things to be classified atypical you would need either an 'all agreed upon' standard or you would need to have documentation of a lot of cases.
I have done some work for 'body part matching' software for disaster areas (yes, it is as grisly as it sounds) and I can tell you that even within one body (when you know there are not more than let's say 20 bodies around) there is a lot of possibilities for mismatching.
Just the database for 'standardized' tattoo's is over 8000 entries. That is 'standardized', meaning that I can not go lower than 8000 different 'types' of tattoo.

Saying something is atypical is extremely hard and in fact has not been achieved in current-day technology *with* all of our enormous capacity for data...

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue. I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.
- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.
- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.
- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.
- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then.

I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

Oh, don't be silly! Unsubstantiated, factless opinion has served you so well, so far; why change now?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.

The bible is a collection of xian stories, if you're trying to cite it as some sort of evidence you'll need to prove it is correct.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.

You've claimed this before, you still haven't shown it is true.

Originally Posted by Jabba

And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation,

Utterly untrue. There are many other such claimed "miraculous" cloths and acheiropoieta, e.g the Veil of Veronica, the Image of Edessa, the Holy Face of Genoa, the Sudarium of Oviedo et cetera.
Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you previously, despite the lies of shroudies it has been duplicated using medieval methods.

Originally Posted by Jabba

and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

It was painted by a believer who had access to the stories, this is not surprising.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Ladewig,

- Good question!

- For one thing, the only hands on scientist arguing against authenticity, Walter McCrone, was adamant about there being no blood on the Shroud.
- Also, the apparent blood stains on the Shroud could not have been painted -- they have the characteristics (not visible to the naked eye) of real wounds, they were on the Shroud before the image and were established on the Shroud by a different process than was the image.

What are these miraculous characteristics?


The skeptic view is that it is paint with or without some blood mixed in. Therefore proving the presence or absence of blood does nothing to that position.

The believer point of view is that it is miracle juice or a mix of miracle juice and blood. Are there any believers who claim that blood is the only thing accounting for the image?

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue.

What makes you say that? You know more about me and from a direct source than that you know about the situation of the shroud...

Originally Posted by Jabba

I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

Yes please.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.

But why would someone who loved him not first remove that symbol of mockery and despise? That is just downright evil.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.

What with the large number of people crucified in those same days, it stands to reason that not breaking bones was rather a timesaver, so it would probably occur with more people on that day.
Especially with Sabbath.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.

The keyword here being *most*. That already puts it in the 'may', 'could' category. But where is it shown that the fabric was too fancy for crucifixion victims?
'It stands to reason' is not something that would be usable here, since we have no backlog of supplies from the merchants of those days.
The problem with this part is that again, without a large body of evidence describing what was common it can only be conjecture that

a) it really was fancier than normal shroud weave
b) crucifixion victims did not readily receive it

Originally Posted by Jabba

- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

Barring it being a fake, because then it would not be coincidental at all.

But as I said earlier, you overrate coincidence way too much.

The logic 'it fits the description so it must be X' is a common fallacy.

First off, the best you could say would be 'it fits the description, so it could be X'.

But then you would need to seriously narrow down all the other variables.

Because one item we still have not addressed is that it may have been from crucifixion cases before or after Jesus.

These have not been documented so thoroughly and therefore could easily make for the same image forming; there is no documentation saying that the Romans did *not* crown others like 'beggar king' or 'queen of whores' or 'king of your castle'.
After all, the Roman empire was quite large and group minds often think of the same pranks.

While on the image forming... I also asked about the technology... can we get anywhere on that front?

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

Yes please, and again, thank you for your time and effort.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Paladin,

- I don't know anything about what you do (so, I really shouldn't say a whole lot about it), but my best guess is that the situations with which you're involved are not especially analogous to the Shroud issue. I guess it's up to me to track down my sources about crucifixions back then. I'll try to do that.

- But anyway, for the moment it is my understanding (and it makes sense) that the crown of thorns was not just atypical -- it was unique. The Bible story claims that many of the Jewish people welcomed Jesus as King when he entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, and that the Romans sarcastically placed the "crown" on his head and a sign on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews" because many Jews did consider him the Messiah and King.
- The spear in the side was not unique -- apparently, that was used to make sure the victim was dead. But from what I've read, most of the time it wasn't necessary -- the Romans usually left the body on the cross for the carrion to eat. In this case, so as not to agitate the Jewish leaders, they wanted to get him down before the Sabbath.
- No-broken-bones was supposedly atypical because in order to breathe the victim had to keep lifting himself up, and the Romans would typically break the victims' legs in order to speed things up. And again, the Bible agrees with the no-broken-bones scenario.
- The Shroud is very fancy -- not something that most crucifixion victims would receive -- but, it was a fabric and weave available in Jerusalem during the first century CE.
- And finally, the Shroud is essentially the only example of such image formation, and it would make for quite a coincident if this one example just happened to fit perfectly with the Biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion.

- I'll see what I can do about backing up my claims.

All the above is religious speculation which is rendered entirely irrelevant and completely useless in light of the C14 dates.

The C14 remains the only scientifically valid independent accurate dates which have ever been determined for the shroud.

You need to deal with the C14 before trying to create debates about anything else (such as biblical claims about what happened to Jesus).

The only way to overturn those C14 dates is by showing genuine published scientific research which supersedes the 1988 results and which contradicts those dates.

There are no such genuine publications contradicting the C14.

If the Vatican and shroud groups like STURP really wanted to challenge the C14 dates then they would be appealing to science labs around the world to make new and more accurate tests on dating the shroud. Almost all top level Univ. research labs would happily oblige and do that for free. You could have the new results within a week if you wanted.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Jabba

(Just to remind viewers that I'm currently trying to answer Paladin's question about even if we could show that the Shroud was 2000 years old, why would we logically think that it had to be that of Jesus.)

Even if it was possible* to prove that it was wrapped around JC, my question would be "who cares?" It still wouldn't prove that JC was the son of a mythical god.




* It isn't possible as the shroud is a 13th century fake.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser#151

No matter what kind of obfuscation is tried, C14 dating shows the shroud is fake.

Originally Posted by Jabba#153

- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Originally Posted by IanS

Well anything might be wrong lol.

But what you are now implying is that because two or more different things are both possible, it means they are all equally likely!

On that basis you’d be arguing that it's as likely as not that that the earth is only 6000 years old and that science has made a series of mistakes in thinking that all the vast mass of evidence conclusively points to a date around 4.5 billion years old.

IanS,
- I didn’t mean to imply what you said I implied.
- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

[Captain_Swoop]

To me the biggest 'tell' that it's a fake is that it doesn't look like a real person. It looks like a painting. it has wrong proportions, it has a styalised face.

Why would anyone think it was anything but a painting?

[Jabba]

- Unfortunately, I must have hundreds of questions and objections yet to answer…

- Here’s something I had said earlier:
- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

- So anyway, I got seduced, and must now ignore most of those questions and objections… I am genuinely sorry about that. I would really like to try to answer them all. But for now, I’m going to try to limit my focus to carbon dating and blood, and to only one branch of each at a time.

Paladin,
- Before I do that, I will try to provide some of the evidence to which I referred back in #163.


- I’ll be back.

[Jabba]

- Here are a couple of pro authenticity writings that I think should be considered when evaluating the validity of the carbon dating.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Jo...ell/rogers.htm

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Here are a couple of pro authenticity writings that I think should be considered when evaluating the validity of the carbon dating.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Jo...ell/rogers.htm

Your first link goes to a dead link at csicop.org, instead of the article by Joe Nickell.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.htm

ETA - found it here.

Ouch.

Quote:

However, apart from the fire damage, the cloth is remarkably well preserved for a reputed age of nearly 2000 years. Also, no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave (Nickell 1998, 35; Wilson 1998, 98—99, 188; Sox 1981). In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracle—that “the blood is real blood”3 and the image was produced by “a rotting body” (Rogers 2004).

Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.”

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

Dear God! More convoluted shrouddebate.com complexity.

Quote:

- I’ll be back.

No need to hurry. Take your time.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Your first link goes to a dead link at csicop.org, instead of the article by Joe Nickell.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.htm

ETA - found it here.

Ouch.

Carlitos,
- For me, that first link (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm) goes to a pro-authenticity article talking about Joe Nickell...
- Can you try again?
- I wonder if I'm the only one getting that...

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

To me the biggest 'tell' that it's a fake is that it doesn't look like a real person. It looks like a painting. it has wrong proportions, it has a styalised face.

Why would anyone think it was anything but a painting?

Looks remarkably like a Teutonic knight.

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Unfortunately, I must have hundreds of questions and objections yet to answer…

- Here’s something I had said earlier:
- The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up (down?) to the next “branching.”
- When we spokespersons in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing appropriate turns and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

- So anyway, I got seduced, and must now ignore most of those questions and objections… I am genuinely sorry about that. I would really like to try to answer them all. But for now, I’m going to try to limit my focus to carbon dating and blood, and to only one branch of each at a time.

Paladin,
- Before I do that, I will try to provide some of the evidence to which I referred back in #163.


- I’ll be back.

from: http://messiahornot.com/challenge99.php

Quote:

The basic claim here is that the best way to actually "get somewhere" in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up to the next “branching.”

1. When we SP’s in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be -- our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing critical turns (“exits”) and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

From:http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68

Quote:

The basic claim here is that the best way to actually “get somewhere” in an argument (debate) as it tries to branch out exponentially, is to follow only one branch at a time. Complete that branch, then back up to the next “branching.”
When we SP’s in a debate try to negotiate numerous branches at one time – as seductive as that may be — our mental set is not sufficiently patient, we keep missing critical turns (“exits”) and the debate goes nowhere but in circles.

So in a nutshell, we have cutting and pasting from one or more websites, avoidance of legitimate questions, repeating of points already shown to be without merit, empty promises to provide evidence, multi day sabbaticals and obfuscation.
Am I the only one here to smell a troll? Jabba, are you DOC?

[GlennB]

It might have been said already but ...

We did a "shroud" experiment in the office one day, where we wrapped a sheet of A3 round someone's head and pencilled in the major features plus chin, hairline etc.

Spread out flat it was comical, with the ears way out there looking ridiculous and the whole thing didn't resemble the shroud-thingy whatsoever. The whole business is too ridiculous to contemplate, for me, but if this shroud registered the impression of a face, why aren't the ear areas way out there?

p.s. you can try this at home, just don't poke anybody's eyes out with a pencil.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- I didn’t mean to imply what you said I implied.
- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

No ... you are now trying to go back over the same old ground that you started with - you gave that link before, that is most definitely not a scientific research paper, on the contrary it appears quite blatantly to be a fundamentalist Christian Shroud propaganda site.

What the C14 shows, as you must well know by now, is that the only scientifically reliable dates we have for the shroud show that it almost certainly dates from 1260AD to 1390AD ... there are no other scientifically reliable dates at all.

That's the end of the debate unless you can show a genuine scientifically valid research paper which overturns the C14 dating ...

... where is that paper?

Forget the other stuff ... you need first and foremost to overturn the C14 ... where are the scientific research publications which do that?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

Untrue. There is absolutely no reason to think that there is any issue with the ¹⁴C dating of the cloth despite the attempts of believers to try and create doubt. The "patch" and "contamination" theories are demonstrated nonsense.
Of course the ¹⁴C doesn't stand alone is showing the shroud as a medieval fake, there's also the:

• lack of historical background before the mid fourteenth century
• the (alleged) confession of the forger
• the textile analysis
• the artistic similarities with other religious art of the period
• the contemporary descriptions of the shroud as a fake

all of which has been pointed out to you before and all of which points to a similar origin.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Multivac

It isn't possible as the shroud is a 13th century fake.

Nitpick, it's probably a fourteenth century fake, ~1350.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Here are a couple of pro authenticity writings that I think should be considered when evaluating the validity of the carbon dating.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Jo...ell/rogers.htm

Irrelevant propaganda from believers and excellent examples of the inverted Argument from Authority and Well Poisoning logical fallacies as well as plenth of Ad Hominem attacks; there is nothing there to support any claims of problems with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud.
No science there.

Is this really the best you can come up with?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Jabba

IanS,
- I didn’t mean to imply what you said I implied.
- All I was trying to imply was that C14 data didn’t show the Shroud is a fake – it appeared to show that the Shroud is a fake. Many scientists, and investigators otherwise, have since claimed that the dating, itself, was invalid… For instance, see http://www.factsplusfacts.com/. At this point, we all need to carefully weigh both sides. That's what I'm hoping to do with our debate.

What do you mean, debate? I'm happy with the carbon 14 test. If for some reason you're not, a debate is of no value. What you need to do is demand another test. Are you doing this or simply creating bizarre conditions of inextricable complexity within which to hold a debate? Get another test made. Until that's done, matters remain where they currently stand. It's a 14th century fake. Ample other evidence supports that view.

Please refer me to a report of any activities you have engaged in to secure another carbon dating.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Carlitos,
- For me, that first link (http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm) goes to a pro-authenticity article talking about Joe Nickell...

...which ends with the text:

Quote:

Everyone should read a recent Joe Nickell's article "Claims of Invalid “Shroud” Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth" and the criticisms of this article that follow. Everyone should judge for himself or herself.

...which links to here, which links to:

Quote:

Page not found!

We've recently redesigned, but hopefully you can find what you're looking for with our site search (at left).

All of the links to the article on all the sub-pages go to that dead link.

And, for what it's worth, that web page could use a general redesign. And, if I were the owner, I'd get rid of the footer text, which makes it look like the website is endorsed by the Skeptical Enquirer.

Quote:

© Copyright 2005, Daniel Porter (a Skeptical Inquirer), Bronxville, New York

Not cool.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by GlennB

It might have been said already but ...

We did a "shroud" experiment in the office one day, where we wrapped a sheet of A3 round someone's head and pencilled in the major features plus chin, hairline etc.

Spread out flat it was comical, with the ears way out there looking ridiculous and the whole thing didn't resemble the shroud-thingy whatsoever. The whole business is too ridiculous to contemplate, for me, but if this shroud registered the impression of a face, why aren't the ear areas way out there?

p.s. you can try this at home, just don't poke anybody's eyes out with a pencil.

That's already been answered in this thread. Jesus was levitating inside a black hole.

No, seriously, that's the explanation given.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by carlitos

All of the links to the article on all the sub-pages go to that dead link.

And, for what it's worth, that web page could use a general redesign. And, if I were the owner, I'd get rid of the footer text, which makes it look like the website is endorsed by the Skeptical Enquirer. Not cool.

Carlitos,
- I'm not sure which web page you're referring to above.

[carlitos]

The site you linked, which is apparently copyrighted by someone named Daniel Porter, who fancies himself a Skeptical Enquirer.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm

[Resume]

Originally Posted by carlitos

The site you linked, which is apparently copyrighted by someone named Daniel Porter, who fancies himself a Skeptical Enquirer.

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/index.htm

Daniel Porter, who lives in Bronksville, NY. Hmm.

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

That's already been answered in this thread. Jesus was levitating inside a black hole.

No, seriously, that's the explanation given.

That's not the explanation given by Jabba, it's just the explanation given in this pro-authenticity video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

It's pretty funny, but not the explanation given by Jabba, in fact Jabba has offered no explanation for the non-distorted image.

Is this the correct explanation, Jabba?

Ward

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Gambling Cruiser,
- But, the C14 dating could be wrong.

Jabba,


You are right it could be wrong.......even if it is wrong..... what does that mean?

Let's for the sake of argument admit to you that IT IS wrong.

What does that then mean?

All it means is that WE DO NOT KNOW what date the shroud has been created in.

Does it then mean it is 1AD or 33 AD or whatever??????

No it does not mean ANYTHING...... all it means is that we do not know.

So why would it be if we do not know that you are more BIASED towards accepting that it is 33AD and not 2000 BCE or 1200 AD????

And if Christians are GENUINELY concerned about this and GENUINELY need to prove to everyone on earth that Jesus rose from the dead and here is the shroud as proof then WHY....WHY are they not DEMANDING and CRYING OUT LOUD for the shroud to be incontrovertibly tested to finally SETTLE this doubt?

Why don't all Christians and the Vatican submit the sample that they think would pass the test and do it under FULL DISCLOSURE and scrutiny and in all honesty?

Why not settle this finally for posterity and for the sake of the Christian religion.

If the Vatican and the Christians are SURE and have no doubt at all, then what do they have to fear from retesting the shroud? Why are they stalling?

Can you recognize a HOAX when you see it? I do not mean that you have 100% proof that it is a hoax.... I mean that you see all the indications of disingenuousness and fakery and obfuscation and vagueness and contrived excuses and hand waiving and appeal to special circumstances and not submitting to genuine enquiry etc. etc.

Well.... in this case that is exactly what is going on..... IT IS A HOAX but you cannot recognize it because you are blinded.

If you were genuinely enquiring you would not say something is X when so far the only test to prove that it is has failed..... if you are a RATIONAL THINKER you would not accept X as that unless it is proven to be that...... you do not assume it is X despite no proof whatsoever and on the contrary there is proof that it is not. Regardless of the doubt about the validity of the proof you should at the very least doubt and not accept until you have another DEFINITE proof one way or the other.

Why don't you apply the same CRITICAL SKEPTICISM to the shroud itself that you seem to be applying to the ¹⁴C dating. Why don't you doubt the shroud as much as you doubt the dating?

The only reason you would do that is CONFIRMATION BIAS and WISHFUL THINKING and geographical brain washing.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

That's not the explanation given by Jabba, it's just the explanation given in this pro-authenticity video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

It's pretty funny, but not the explanation given by Jabba, in fact Jabba has offered no explanation for the non-distorted image.

Is this the correct explanation, Jabba?

Ward

So the lady says that her 3D modeling of the images shows that the person she claims was in the shroud and the shroud itself was hovering when the image was made due to a black hole?

After doing the 3D imaging and concluding that if this was a burial shroud then the person and the shroud were in zero gravity I would conclude the image was not an imprint of a human but rather a painting or stylized image of a person created through some other means than burial.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

So the lady says that her 3D modeling of the images shows that the person she claims was in the shroud and the shroud itself was hovering when the image was made due to a black hole?

After doing the 3D imaging and concluding that if this was a burial shroud then the person and the shroud were in zero gravity I would conclude the image was not an imprint of a human but rather a painting or stylized image of a person created through some other means than burial.

The reason your explanation isn't as good as theirs is that it doesn't include floating or a black hole.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by GlennB

p.s. you can try this at home, just don't poke anybody's eyes out with a pencil.

As my sainted mother used to say: debunking the Shroud of Turin is all fun and games until someone loses and eye.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

As my sainted mother used to say: debunking the Shroud of Turin is all fun and games until someone loses and eye.

Sainted? Do you have some sort of cloth to back up that assertion?

[realpaladin]

Jabba... I have a lot of patience (not to mention nifty tools that remind me if I have not received an answer on various fora for a while)... so please do take your time but do not think that I have forgotten our Q&A.

The reason I am tenacious about it is because the whole forensics thing is applicable to most religious artefacts.

A lot of them are 'taken for granted' as being 'the thing' because they were introduced and 'ratified' way before methodological/forensical thinking was in place.

So, please do research the answers.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Jabba... I have a lot of patience (not to mention nifty tools that remind me if I have not received an answer on various fora for a while)... so please do take your time but do not think that I have forgotten our Q&A.

The reason I am tenacious about it is because the whole forensics thing is applicable to most religious artefacts.

A lot of them are 'taken for granted' as being 'the thing' because they were introduced and 'ratified' way before methodological/forensical thinking was in place.

So, please do research the answers.

This reminds me of a sceptical programme that aired a year or two ago in which Tony Robinson was the credulous guy and some scientist was his Scully. They tested a different woo each of the three weeks, although it was often clear that they were going through the motions and they often withheld really obvious stuff until the end of the programme to artificially create a sense of mystery and give the programme a structure.

Anyway one week, I forget exactly what the main theme of the programme as a whole was, but one of the things they did was took some bones which were holy relics from a church in order to have them tested. They were supposed to be the bones of a saint. Turns out that some of them were pig, and some of them were something else that I forget now.

[Andrew Wiggin]

A few interesting tidbits;

The Mask_of_Agamemnon^WP shows what would be realistically expected from a piece of flexible material formed to a face then flattened. In this case it's gold leaf with the details incised into it, but the distortion is what you'd actually see.

A dead body on an absorbent surface, especially in a hot climate, can indeed leave a stain on an absorbent surface. That stain doesn't look much like a person though, more like a blotchy outline of a person. A notable case is the case of Margaret Schilling, a mental patient who died on a concrete floor and was not found for weeks. A nice discussion of the chemistry involved in the stain is here: http://www.ohio.edu/people/jacksong/...%20surface.pdf Oddly, it appears that attempts to etch the stain out of the cement only made it more visible, by locally lightening the concrete, giving a photo-negative effect. Note that the pictures of the stain don't look anything like the shroud, just a vaguely humanoid blotch. I guess Margaret Schilling wasn't hovering in a black hole...

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by welshdean

...So in a nutshell, we have cutting and pasting from one or more websites, avoidance of legitimate questions, repeating of points already shown to be without merit, empty promises to provide evidence, multi day sabbaticals and obfuscation.
Am I the only one here to smell a troll? Jabba, are you DOC?

The cut and paste job does give the show away, doesn't it.
Still, Jabba=DOC?
Interesting, if so.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

This reminds me of a sceptical programme that aired a year or two ago in which Tony Robinson was the credulous guy and some scientist was his Scully. They tested a different woo each of the three weeks, although it was often clear that they were going through the motions and they often withheld really obvious stuff until the end of the programme to artificially create a sense of mystery and give the programme a structure.

Anyway one week, I forget exactly what the main theme of the programme as a whole was, but one of the things they did was took some bones which were holy relics from a church in order to have them tested. They were supposed to be the bones of a saint. Turns out that some of them were pig, and some of them were something else that I forget now.

The problem with 'common sense' is that it is 'sense by consensus'.

Normally in forensics you do the 'common sense' thing first; i.e. breadth first; you get all obvious or findable 'starts' or 'leads'.

But here is where forensics often diverges from 'common sense', because most people will then happily talk the 'clues' together in a coherent story.
Or they will focus on the one single 'clue' that matches a prior fitting story.

In forensics you then go into the depth of each item and research it until it has told it's own story.

What you end up with is a lot of 'witness material' that each tells it's own story.

The final story is the one that encompasses all these small stories together and has the least contradictions.

The contradictions can occur because reality has a way of making things look to us as 'clues' or because errors have been made in acquiring the evidence.

Now, there are a lot of examples where it is not as straightforward as I am saying now, but this is the simplified basic methodology.

As for the shroud, that is why I want to follow the 'papertrail'. Because if the ownership can not be proven, then not even the carbon dating would matter (that could be because of errors, conspiracies etc.).

Basically, for the shroud to be anywhere near believable, it would have to hold in any conventional way of handling; procuring, using, storing, transferring to others, etc.

If the carbon dating would date it at 33AD (or it may have been produced earlier, and stored before selling, but not later...) we still have to determine that it was indeed a shroud (sweat, hair samples, skin flakes, dirt... all of these should be findable in one form or other, chemically or physically), then next we would have to determine that Joseph really was the one who brought it to Golgotha (or bought it there) and finally that it was the one that was used to wrap Jesus in.

We can go about that from the date of 'procurement' all the way to the present, saying 'X transferred to Y, then Y to Z' or we can go backwards from the present saying 'Z got it from Y who got it from X'.

But if there is a break in that chain, it has to be verified that the two items that were talked about in both chain segments are one and the same.
*That* is ridiculously hard to do.