Evidence: The Gathering

[Crossless2.0]

I don't understand why a Swedenborgian is so invested in the claims about the shroud.

[Cyberman]

Ok, so the answer actually is "no". Wooters: To save some time, for future reference, a dubious documentary isn't a citation. You made a claim to a scientific study; you ought to be able to cite the research paper so it can be verified. Where for instance are the History Channel's sources? See, you can't simply throw in one voice of alleged authority and expect not to be called on it.

[Esquilax]

You do realize that questioning the source doesn't refute the message? The fact remains that the facial proportions of the image are consistent with   its use a a wrapping. The claim of the earlier poster about 'distortion' is not true.

What are you talking about? Of course it does! The entire argument from authority fallacy is based around the idea that inappropriate authorities cannot be trusted on their opinions alone. The source regularly means that the message is refuted: it's why we won't take David Barton as a source on US history, why taking a layman's opinion on scientific topics is inappropriate, and so on. To say that a questionable source has no impact upon the message is simply foolishness, and in this case is just special pleading toward your source because it says something you want to be true.

Tell me, if I'd used a source with a history of inaccurate reporting to disprove something you believed in, would you still be so insistent that questionable sources as fine?

[Cyberman]

Case in point: Bart Sibrel's documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" and its sequels all prove that the Apollo landings were faked. QED. Fuck the physical and historical evidence.

[JesusHChrist]

Well, to be fair, The History Channel's docu-drivel is where religious batshittery belongs; suitable for supping by gullible saps.

More like the Hysterical Channel...

[Spooky]

---

How long should I give this before assuming the answer is "no", I wonder..?

From the History Channel, skip to about 1:15:00 where they talk about the computer modeling.

Lol really Chad? Really?

---

History Channel, right...

[Crossless2.0]

Well, to be fair, The History Channel's docu-drivel is where religious batshittery belongs; suitable for supping by gullible saps.

More like the Hysterical Channel...

Now, now . . . they don't just provide questionable history lessons and docu-drivel for the superstitious and conspiracy theorists.  They are also a useful recruiting arm for the military.

[Randy Carson]

No, dude. The fact that there is a painting of the shroud that is older than the flawed C-14 dating suggests for the age of the shroud is an inconvenient fact that you cannot explain.

So... in a response to my pointing out your argument from ignorance, you opt to go for a second argument from ignorance? "You can't explain this, therefore I'm right," is no better than "science can't explain this, therefore I'm right."

Besides, I did explain it: you've got a picture of a shroud, that you're convinced is the shroud... for no readily apparent reason. Or did you think human silhouettes on cloth are unique to the shroud of turin? Hey, my grandparents have an old cloth they use for their projector back home: if they project a human image on it, is that the shroud of turin too?

Or do you have room in your heart for more silhouettes on cloth in every other circumstance but this one?

That was a lot of typing in order to say nothing.

Objectively speaking, the Shroud of Turin cannot be proved to be the burial cloth of Jesus, can it?

We both know and agree on this. Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it. MOST crucified people were not scourged first. MOST crucified people did not have a lance wound in their side. AND to hear you boys tell the tale, MOST crucified people weren't even buried at all...they were left to rot on the cross or thrown into a shallow grave.

So, that makes this shroud kinda unique, doesn't it?

Oh, and all that pollen and stuff that has been documented from the shroud...you know the stuff that only grows in a tiny region of ISRAEL...wow, what a coincidence that the forger was smart enough to TAKE his canvas to Palestine first...just so he could contaminate it with pollen spores native to NOT EUROPE.

But hey, I say it's probable; you say it's not. I say it's another clue that leads some to faith; you say no way.

Whatever.

Meanwhile, the boys in the lab are coming to the conclusion that there is nothing else like this piece of cloth known to man.

[abaris]

Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it.

From this I gather, you didn't look at the Smithsonian video. No surprise here. Truth is, we know nothing about the provenience of the shroud. We only know that it surfaced when relics were the commodity to make a fortune. And as long as the church doesn't grant another invasive procedure on the shroud, it will stay that way.

[Randy Carson]

Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it.

From this I gather, you didn't look at the Smithsonian video. No surprise here. Truth is, we know nothing about the provenience of the shroud. We only know that it surfaced when relics were the commodity to make a fortune. And as long as the church doesn't grant another invasive procedure on the shroud, it will stay that way.

Have you ever read a book on the Shroud of Turin?

If so, what was the title?