IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 14th October 2012, 05:04 AM   #3561
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,225
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It appears that no one on this thread (besides me) believes that there is a significant possibility that F-L could have missed a re-weave.
You are joking, right? Nobody here remotely agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Consequently, I will try to summarize our discussion of this sub-etc-issue on my website, let you guys see it here, then move on to see if I can find an answer to the need to use only threads from the cloth itself in the patch.
--- Jabba
Bluntly, you can take an unlikely anatomical excursion with your other web sites. If you are unable to present your argument here, then it matters not where you present it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 05:07 AM   #3562
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pakeha,
- I didn't. Could you direct me to it?
--- Jabba
You might try the search engine for this particular thread.
But to sum up-
Mr Erhlich describes precisely the methodology for French reweaving, calling it a 16th century technique. This technique specifically uses threads from the original fabric.
This agrees with Mme Fleury-Lemberg's description of the technique.
Since the invisible patch/reweaving uses threads from the original fabric, it would not under any circumstances affect the C14 dating.

Is that clear?
But you already knew this, Jabba.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- After more careful reading, it appears (as you guys imply) that Rogers, Benford, Marino and Pryor haven't taken into account a particular aspect of the Frenway method of reweave (to which they seem to be referring)...

- “First, you must be let in on a trade secret: Except in rare cases, you get thread to reweave a damaged place from hidden parts of the garment itself, from some place where the appearance and strength of the garment is not harmed in any way.” (From http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf, page 38)
- And then, “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on PRISTINE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL (my emphasis) to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth.” (from page 7 of the Thermochimica Acta article by Rogers at http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)

- Rogers was apparently not tuned into the part about threads “of the garment itself.”
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.

--- Jabba
It's long past time to put this rather silly idea to bed, don't you think, Jabba?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 05:08 AM   #3563
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,225
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
You could try following the links in the bloody post that you quoted.
Right. That's gonna happen.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 05:26 AM   #3564
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Tarpon Skating/Handwaving/AT&T

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It appears that no one on this thread (besides me) believes that there is a significant possibility that F-L could have missed a re-weave.


Are you sure? I think you should read the whole thread again in case you missed someone agreeing with you.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Consequently, I will try to summarize our discussion of this sub-etc-issue on my website, let you guys see it here . . .


Given that all indications are that you haven't been reading the discussion, how the hell are you going to summarise it?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
. . . then move on to see if I can find an answer to the need to use only threads from the cloth itself in the patch.
--- Jabba


You're going to move on from your baseless contention that the C14 sample area was a patch by pretending to research methods by which the C14 sample area might have been patched?

I'll bet nobody saw that coming.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 05:50 AM   #3565
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It appears that no one on this thread (besides me) believes that there is a significant possibility that F-L could have missed a re-weave.
- Consequently, I will try to summarize our discussion of this sub-etc-issue on my website, let you guys see it here, then move on to see if I can find an answer to the need to use only threads from the cloth itself in the patch.
--- Jabba
14C?

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 14th October 2012 at 05:53 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 10:33 AM   #3566
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,483
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Wollery,
- Would you accept that there is a "significant" possibility that F-L would have missed such a weave in her examination prior to the carbon dating? By "significant" I mean enough possibility of her missing it that you would be hesitant to "sign off" on her opinion minus further evidence.
--- Jabba


The positive and initial clam here comes from you and your fellow Christians - that means the first burden of "proof" falls on you ... you have to show genuine evidence to suggest there was ever a patch in the first place.

What is your evidence to show there was ever any such "invisible" patch?



It does not matter at all what F-Lemberg or anyone else says about your claims of patch - you must first show that there is any such patch to talk about at all!

Where is this evidence of any invisible patch?



Remember, your whole idea of an invisible patch apparently comes from a retired nurse called Sue Benford and an ex Catholic priest named Marino, who together were trying to sell a commercial book claiming the C14 was mistaken and that their Christian faith was right to tell them to believe in the shroud of Jesus.

But afaik, neither Benford nor Marino had ever even seen the shroud, far less had they ever seen any of the samples cut for C14. That is - personally they had no idea at all what was the condition of that part of the shroud (or indeed any part of the shroud) ... and they certainly know nothing about any research science, let alone any C14 radioisotope dating.

So to repeat – before you can ask anyone about anything F-lemberg may have said, you must first show that there is real evidence of a patch …

… Where is your evidence of an invisible patch?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 10:37 AM   #3567
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
What is so very telling is that Jabba will not believe Fleury-Lemburg in her area of expertise -- namely that there is no patch -- but jumps to believer her outside her area of expertise -- namely the contamination and C14 dating.

That is the entirety of the believer argument -- cherry pick blatantly, ignore counter arguments blatantly, and deny it all blatantly while blatantly accusing those who actually follow evidence of closed-mindedness.

This has gone beyond childish.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 11:56 AM   #3568
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It appears that no one on this thread (besides me) believes that there is a significant possibility that F-L could have missed a re-weave.
That's right, Jabba.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Consequently, I will try to summarize our discussion of this sub-etc-issue on my website, let you guys see it here, then move on to see if I can find an answer to the need to use only threads from the cloth itself in the patch.
--- Jabba
Why bother with the summary, Jabba?

' an answer to the need to use only threads from the cloth itself in the patch'
Haven't you read the definition of the technique given by Mme Fleury-Lemberg and other textile experts, including Mr Ehrlich, quoted by Beford/Marino?
Didn't you watch the video I posted up showing how invisible reweaving is done?


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...before you can ask anyone about anything F-lemberg may have said, you must first show that there is real evidence of a patch …

… Where is your evidence of an invisible patch?
A good point.
The pro-authenticity advocates have a choice of options to explain the C14 dating- patch or deliberate fraud.
In their shoes, I'd go for the patch, too.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 11:38 PM   #3569
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,
- From where do you get that description?
--- Jabba
I'll confess that I made it up. If it turns up somewhere else that predates my post, I will confess to plagiarism.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2012, 11:53 PM   #3570
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- After more careful reading, it appears (as you guys imply) that Rogers, Benford, Marino and Pryor haven't taken into account a particular aspect of the Frenway method of reweave (to which they seem to be referring)...

- “First, you must be let in on a trade secret: Except in rare cases, you get thread to reweave a damaged place from hidden parts of the garment itself, from some place where the appearance and strength of the garment is not harmed in any way.” (From http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf, page 38)
- And then, “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on PRISTINE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL (my emphasis) to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth.” (from page 7 of the Thermochimica Acta article by Rogers at http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)

- Rogers was apparently not tuned into the part about threads “of the garment itself.”
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.

--- Jabba
OK, for a brief moment, let's pretend that medieval repairers used new, pristine threads to create a patch. Let's further pretend that they could, by using dye, exactly match the color of a piece of fabric that had been naturally aging for 13 centuries. Let's pretend all that is possible and true (remember, we're pretending and not accepting that this is remotely the case).

Even if we pretend that, we have to further pretend that they also aged the fabric in ways beyond merely color. Dust and light and air all do things to fabric beyond discolor it.

Also, we have no idea what the fabric looked like that long ago. It has aged centuries since this "invisible" repair took place (still pretending). Not only did they match the color and the natural aging beyond just color, but they matched it with a dye that aged for another 700 years in exactly the same way as the original fabric!! Expert weavers in the orient frequently could not match threads dyed using the same methods and the same dyes on the same day. You see it all the time on antique middle eastern rugs, where one dye lot ends and another begins.

It's time to stop pretending.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 01:11 AM   #3571
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
The question of dye lots is always there- even for modern-day knitters and weavers!
Especially for those who work with wools produced with'natural' dyes.

Anyway, about the effects of time on cloth:
http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic...25-01-004.html
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 03:20 AM   #3572
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,351
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Because the undeniable fact is that the entire idea of an invisible patch came from Benford & Marino who themselves had never even seen the shroud, far less ever seen any of the C14 samples, and who were at the time looking for ideas to write a popular commercial book promoting the shroud.

In order to cast doubt on the C14 they came up with the ludicrous idea that maybe the C14 scientists had been fooled into testing a piece of cloth that, although cut from the shroud, was not actually originally from the shroud, and was in fact by pure coincidence a completely different piece of patching cloth added to that precise spot on the shroud in the 15th century.<snip>
Something I'd like to emphesise regarding the selection of the area for radiocarbon dating and the whole patch nonsense; this was the same area previously sampled in 1973 for other testing, after detailed examination of the sloth.
None of the prior examination and testing showed any evidence of a patch there.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 03:31 AM   #3573
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,351
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Wollery,
- Would you accept that there is a "significant" possibility that F-L would have missed such a weave in her examination prior to the carbon dating? By "significant" I mean enough possibility of her missing it that you would be hesitant to "sign off" on her opinion minus further evidence.
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It appears that no one on this thread (besides me) believes that there is a significant possibility that F-L could have missed a re-weave.
And again you are, I believe deliberately, focusing on a single minor point in an attempt to support you silly belief in the shroud's authenticity.
Many other experts, including several I named previously, also examined the shroud, especially the proposed sample area, and found no evidence of a patch there. Further, also something I've stated previously, this was the area sampled in 1973 and subject to detailed testing. Without any evidence of patching.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 04:03 AM   #3574
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Something I'd like to emphesise regarding the selection of the area for radiocarbon dating and the whole patch nonsense; this was the same area previously sampled in 1973 for other testing, after detailed examination of the sloth.
None of the prior examination and testing showed any evidence of a patch there.
Seeing at the way this thread is paced and moving I think you got the correct word there .
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 05:23 AM   #3575
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,351
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Seeing at the way this thread is paced and moving I think you got the correct word there .
I didn't notice that typo, must have been my sub-conscious.............
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 10:17 AM   #3576
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/F-L&G

- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.

- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts. And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 10:21 AM   #3577
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
You're telling us how to debate again.

Though there is some hope--at least now you're admitting that you're doing so in order to bias the debate to favore you.

Quote:
And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.
Yes--except for that nagging little issue of the fact that the only way you'll accept any issue being put to rest is if we conclude that you're right. You continue to refuse to accept the possibility that your conclusion is wrong, so you remain hopeless.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 10:26 AM   #3578
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.

- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts. And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba
You still want us to do your research.

You still do not know your own references.

You still evade the tough questions.

You still cannot find weakness with the C14 data.

You still won't acknowledge that you have been wrong about all the reweaving claims.

You still won't say what happens as cloth ages.

You still won't say why you agree with F-L when she speaks outside her expertise but not when she speaks within it.

You still won't acknowledge the specific criticisms of your references.

You still won't believe this is not a courtroom.

You still won't acknowledge that you know nothing of C14 dating.

And yet you still say that we are the biased ones.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 11:00 AM   #3579
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,483
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.

- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts. And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba


You are for the 50th time attempting to take charge of how everyone here should debate anything. And you have been told 50 times before that nobody is going to fall for such a silly manoeuvre as that.

Frankly it’s offensive listening to that sort of thing. It’s like a badly behaved child constantly trying to get his own way by insisting his mates play by his own special rules.


If you claim there is a patch, then produce the evidence of any such patch ...

... Produce some real independent evidence of any such patch please.

Don’t tell us what fanatical religious shroud believers think. Tell us of genuinely independent sources who claim there is evidence of an "invisible patch" ... produce it, where is it?

Where is your evidence?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 11:09 AM   #3580
Filippo Lippi
Illuminator
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,736
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.

- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts. And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba
"Evasion noted"
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 12:16 PM   #3581
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
14C date?
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 12:53 PM   #3582
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope." I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments. I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.

- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts. And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba
Fancy that, I found thru experience that debatting with "rethoric people" , which have no idea what the facts are but hold with claws onto an idea no matter how far from the facts or reality that idea is, simply resort to the infinite loop of presenting their rethoric and hoping some bits sticks to the wall. They think they are "patient" but they are broken records. Even after being told 20 times by upteen persons that they are wrong and ignore the fundemmental facts, they still pretend to try to throw minutia at the wall and hope to see it sticks. I think such person are utterly hopeless. They abandonned rationality long ago, and in their limited thinking they think they are rational but unable to open their minds to new facts. We have a few on these boards, like DOC for example.

14C date + no evidence whatsoever from patch by seen expert = you utterly lost 70 pages and 30 years ago.

But hey carry on in your infinite loop.

Last edited by Aepervius; 15th October 2012 at 12:55 PM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 03:02 PM   #3583
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Fancy that, I found thru experience that debatting with "rethoric people" , which have no idea what the facts are but hold with claws onto an idea no matter how far from the facts or reality that idea is, simply resort to the infinite loop of presenting their rethoric and hoping some bits sticks to the wall. They think they are "patient" but they are broken records. Even after being told 20 times by upteen persons that they are wrong and ignore the fundemmental facts, they still pretend to try to throw minutia at the wall and hope to see it sticks. I think such person are utterly hopeless. They abandonned rationality long ago, and in their limited thinking they think they are rational but unable to open their minds to new facts. We have a few on these boards, like DOC for example.

14C date + no evidence whatsoever from patch by seen expert = you utterly lost 70 pages and 30 years ago.

But hey carry on in your infinite loop.
While that is often true, I tend to lean toward the hypothesis that has been stated before here that Jabba knows (at least in part) that his argument is void of merit but continues to spout it for the benefit of believers and not for us. He "took us on," you see, and we failed to convince him he is wrong, and since he is, of course, an honest and intelligent man, then his position must have merit.

All perfectly legitimate in the world of sophistry.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 07:46 PM   #3584
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14 labs after the cutting and the examination by F-L and Ghiberti before the restoration.


And yet you remain unable to formulate a cogent argument in support of . . . well, anything really.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I failed to include the 73 study by Raes. In addition, I've confused the early F-L study with the later F-L, Ghiberti study...


See what I mean?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?


That's one way to get around your lack of research skills, I guess. The trouble with getting other people to do your research though is that they'll continue to come up with answers that show your belief in the shroud's first century origins to be a complete crock, just as they have been for months.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Also, as you know, I think that the only way to have effective debate between opponents with strong disagreements is to be patient and to examine each sub-etc-issue "under a Microscope."


Given your complete and utter failure here to convince anyone of anything it hardly seems that you're in a position to be advocating methods for conducting an effective debate.

Apart from anything else, you still haven't got your head around the fact that in a scientific debate it's the evidence that's going to determine the outcome and you don't have any.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I see no reason to rush through this. If we can slow down, I will eventually give my best answer to your most preferred questions and comments.


We're already going backwards, and every day your answers become more pathetically uninformed and uninformative.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I assume that I could never give my best answer to all your q/c's -- but hopefully, I can give enough to allow a neutral audience to recognize the pattern and come to a consensus (favoring me of course).


The neutral audience that you're talking about in this idiotic Perry Masonesque way is reality itself, and it won't be swayed.

And that's putting a far kinder spin on your intentions that than they deserve. The fact is that you're hoping against hope to convince people through rhetoric and obfuscation and in defiance of the evidence that the shroud is an authentic first century artefact.

This dishonesty perpetrated for the sake of your misguided religious zealotry is quite despicable, mitigated only your abject inability to, as I've previously mentioned, convince anyone of anything.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, if you and I can't effectively finish this, then you and someone else could -- given that we can show them how it's done.


We have.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Also, note that I'm still trying to give my best answer to Dave's #1 question in 2357 -- though, to do that, I had to break that question into parts.


Did I mention subterfuge by obfuscation?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question.


Do you really expect people to try and decipher that mess, go back and try to figure out which sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub parts of which sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub questions you're proposing to give answers to once some sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-subset of long-forgotten conditions is met?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest.

--- Jabba


All of them consisting basically of claiming that your disagreement with the evidence is in itself reason to doubt the conclusions based on that evidence.

As if.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 15th October 2012 at 09:18 PM. Reason: speeling
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2012, 11:43 PM   #3585
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Something I'd like to emphesise regarding the selection of the area for radiocarbon dating and the whole patch nonsense; this was the same area previously sampled in 1973 for other testing, after detailed examination of the sloth.
None of the prior examination and testing showed any evidence of a patch there.

Gosh.
That puts the pro-authenticity advocates in the unenviable position of claiming STURP is in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Anyway, would anyone be willing to remind me of anything pertinent re the early F-L study? For instance, was there anyone of importance working with F-L?

... And note, that I am happy to give my best answer to the problem of French Reweaving actually requiring cloth from the greater Shroud (and therefore not altering the C14 date) if we can put to rest that first sub-divided part of Dave's first question. And, I've told you the different ways we can put it to rest. ...
Are you suggesting the Vatican-appointed head of the 2002 restoration needed a grown-up to walk her through that earlier examination of the TS?

Why is the definition of French re-weaving a problem?
All the professionals agree on it and even wiki accepts it.
Is your claim really based on the assumption that definition is false?

Last edited by pakeha; 15th October 2012 at 11:46 PM.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 12:06 AM   #3586
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So far, in trying to evaluate the expert examination of the Shroud over the years, I've referred to the the 78 STURP study, the F-L study prior to the cutting, the exams done by the C14..,

<snip>

--- Jabba
Going to be blunt here, but what a crapload of evasive nonsense.

It's clear for a long time this poster has no intent to engage in serious discussion. He is obviously avoiding even pretending to present serious arguments.

I don't understand why anyone still attempts to take him seriously.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 16th October 2012 at 12:17 AM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 12:11 AM   #3587
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
I don't understand why anyone still attempts to take him seriously.


If it's any consolation, I never have.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 12:42 AM   #3588
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Going to be blunt here, but what a crapload of evasive nonsense.

It's clear for a long time this poster has no intent to engage in serious discussion. He is obviously avoiding even pretending to present serious arguments.

I don't understand why anyone still attempts to take him seriously.
Yes, The evasions have followed the same pattern throughout the thread and earlier threads at other forums.

Serious discussion?
No.
A chance to learn about a variety of different aspects of this and that?
Yes.
Who knew there was a chapel in Antwerp dedicated to the Holy Prepuce and paid for by Henry VII?

Who knew the pro-authenticity proponents depend on a non-existent patch in the corner of the TS to substantiate their claims?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 12:58 AM   #3589
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Yes, The evasions have followed the same pattern throughout the thread and earlier threads at other forums.

Serious discussion?
No.
A chance to learn about a variety of different aspects of this and that?
Yes.
Who knew there was a chapel in Antwerp dedicated to the Holy Prepuce and paid for by Henry VII?

Who knew the pro-authenticity proponents depend on a non-existent patch in the corner of the TS to substantiate their claims?
Yes, I've heard the argument that continuing the "discussion" presents an opportunity for other participants to learn.

While true to an extent, I think the negative thing it does is continue to pretend that the OP has presented some kind of argument that merits discussion in the first place.

This thread has gone on much too long, IMO, and right now all its longevity does is lend support to the argument that the OP's claims have some merit. And it's patently clear that the only goal of the OP is to keep the thread going as long as possible,while avoiding presenting any actual arguments at all. That is his strategy.

Maybe some like this and appreciate this as an opportunity to share or learn new facts.

I'd rather not.

My $0.02...
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 16th October 2012 at 01:14 AM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 01:20 AM   #3590
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
...
This thread has gone on much too long, IMO, and right now all its longevity does is lend support to the argument that the other side's claims have some merit. And it's patently clear that the only goal of the OP is to keep the thread going as long as possible,whole avoiding presenting any actual arguments at all. That is his strategy.

Maybe some like this and appreciate this as an opportunity to share or learn new facts.

I'd rather not.

My $0.02...
I respect your point of view- til now the pro-authenticity proponents have offered no reasons to imagine the TS is other than a medieval artefact.

But may I differ on one point, please?
Check out the OP.
It's about the claims of some group about the number of images that can be 'seen' in the TS.
And in some rocks, too.

This whole thread has shifted into a separate reality of telly courtroom arguments, textile definitions and explanations of C14 dating.
I say, let's see just what this creature is capable of doing.

But that's just my personal opinion, of course.

Last edited by pakeha; 16th October 2012 at 03:13 AM.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 02:44 AM   #3591
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,351
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
14C date?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 02:52 AM   #3592
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,351
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Gosh.
That puts the pro-authenticity advocates in the unenviable position of claiming STURP is in on the conspiracy, doesn't it?
Along with Cardinal Archbishop Ballestrero, Professor Gonella (archiepiscopal scientific adviser) and numerous scientists.
Everyone's in on it.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 03:58 AM   #3593
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/F-L

- OK. No one has given me any new info on F-L’s examination of the Shroud prior to the cutting, so I’m going to agree to disagree, show you my version of this particular disagreement, ask for your version, post my version on my website, post yours if you wish (you can post your own if you wish) and move on to the next sub-etc-issue.
- As of now, the next sub-etc-issue is the need to use undamaged threads from the greater Shroud in weaving this “invisible” patch – which would NOT alter the dating anyway.

- I will also try to develop a diagram of our overall debate so far – but, that might take awhile…

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:20 AM   #3594
Multivac
Master Poster
 
Multivac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I will also try to develop a diagram of our overall debate so far – but, that might take awhile…--- Jabba
Could I make a suggestion? Rather than trying to diagram the discussion, could you please just give us a very simple statement about why you think the C14 data is wrong.

Preferably in the format of "I think the C14 data is wrong because of blah, blah and blah. Here is the data thta led me to this conclusion......."

Thanks
Multivac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:29 AM   #3595
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
Dunno.
I think a diagram of the debate thus far has definite possibilities.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. No one has given me any new info on F-L’s examination of the Shroud prior to the cutting, so I’m going to agree to disagree, show you my version of this particular disagreement, ask for your version, post my version on my website, post yours if you wish (you can post your own if you wish) and move on to the next sub-etc-issue. ...
What "new" information did you want??
Isn't Mme Fleury-Lemberg's falsification of the Marino/Benford article enough?
Or are you suggesting the patch was magicked away between her first examination of the TS and her 2002 restoration of it?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:38 AM   #3596
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. No one has given me any new info on F-L’s examination of the Shroud prior to the cutting, so I’m going to agree to disagree, show you my version of this particular disagreement, ask for your version, post my version on my website, post yours if you wish (you can post your own if you wish) and move on to the next sub-etc-issue.


This pretty much describes the situation in January of this year, just before you joined the Forum.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As of now, the next sub-etc-issue is the need to use undamaged threads from the greater Shroud in weaving this “invisible” patch – which would NOT alter the dating anyway.


What invisible patch would that be, Jabba? The one that you've completely failed to provide an iota of evidence for?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I will also try to develop a diagram of our overall debate so far – but, that might take awhile…

--- Jabba


Ya think?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:38 AM   #3597
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. No one has given me any new info on F-L’s examination of the Shroud prior to the cutting, so I’m going to agree to disagree, show you my version of this particular disagreement, ask for your version, post my version on my website, post yours if you wish (you can post your own if you wish) and move on to the next sub-etc-issue.
- As of now, the next sub-etc-issue is the need to use undamaged threads from the greater Shroud in weaving this “invisible” patch – which would NOT alter the dating anyway.

- I will also try to develop a diagram of our overall debate so far – but, that might take awhile…

--- Jabba
You don't read the other people post at all, right ?

because if you did, you would have realized by now that a bunch of expert have had a chance of examine the cloth, and none ever found a patch.

See, you *WISH* desperately to have a patch, because you know you can't dispute the 14C results. So you dispute the sample are valid. But to do that it is not enough to say you disbelieve F-L or any other expert. You would need to provide positive evidence of a patch. But you are unable to do that. So all you try is rethoric, mud slinging people, and you hope that people will jump on the alternative hypothesis you propose of authenticity.

1) you haven't provided positive evidence of patching
2) even if you had,(and you have NOT) that ONLY provide evidence of patching that does NOT provide evidence of authenticity
2-B) and that despite being shown by YOUR OWN SOURCE that the patch is neither truly invisible, AND that it uses the same cloth material thus making patch irrelevant for dating
3) no, dorothy, showing the alternative hypothesis wrong does not make your pet theory right. This is the same ******** the creationist foster thinking that if evolution is shown ever wrong then their pet creationsit theory will be the only alternative.
4) I will provide you an alternative RIGHT NOW that your patching theory cannot dispute : A- the cloth is from 14th century B- the cloth was patched shortly after the fire (again NOT evidenced by you) with a similar cloth 8thus the date are quasi identical) and is miraculously invisibe to expert C- Still having a patch DOES NOT make your hypotheses of 1st century. In other word even if you showed there was a patch (WHICH YOU DID NOT) that does not provide evidence for authenticity as there are plenty of alternative hypotheses, and the OTHER evidence around the cloth show it to be a 14th century fake too !

I think I am slowly turning woo. Soon i will use other color fonts, and other font size.

But the worst blind are those with perfectly fine eyesight, but do not want to see.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:39 AM   #3598
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
^
Dunno.
I think a diagram of the debate thus far has definite possibilities.


All of them hilarious.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:45 AM   #3599
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,483
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. No one has given me any new info on F-L’s examination of the Shroud prior to the cutting, so I’m going to agree to disagree, show you my version of this particular disagreement, ask for your version, post my version on my website, post yours if you wish (you can post your own if you wish) and move on to the next sub-etc-issue.
- As of now, the next sub-etc-issue is the need to use undamaged threads from the greater Shroud in weaving this “invisible” patch – which would NOT alter the dating anyway.

- I will also try to develop a diagram of our overall debate so far – but, that might take awhile…

--- Jabba


OK, so you obviously have no evidence of any such patch at all.

You have been unable to produce any honest evidence against the C14.

And now you have no evidence of your “invisible patch” either.

You don’t actually have even the most microscopic spec of any evidence about any 1st century shroud.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2012, 04:49 AM   #3600
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
 
Recovering Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I think a diagram of the debate thus far has definite possibilities.
But we already know what a circle looks like.
Recovering Agnostic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.