If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14919 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-31 07:42:46 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.

No, they have as much backing as God, or Jehovah.  Jesus was a real person, and the religion was started by people who traveled and lived with him.  That is not true of those you name. It is, however, rather similar to Buddhism.
 
2013-03-31 07:47:44 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers.

That's clearly not been ruled out. Depending on whose account you believe, there may or may not be deposition of iron oxide on the fabric, as opposed to an enzymatic process such as the Maillard reaction. In either case, the image could have an entirely prosaic cause consistent with 14th century forgers motivated by cash, which is a much stronger likelihood than the magical resurrection suntan that Shroud fans seem to espouse.
No, that's not true.  It matters not if there is iron oxide, or a bit of pigment, or Rustoleum on the cloth -- the image is composed of threads which are charred on the OUTSIDE ONLY, not of pigment.
 
2013-03-31 07:53:19 AM  

Surool:

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.

Who said they would have to be "instant" converts?  Nice goalpost move.  People who traveled with Jesus, and other witnesses, made it grow over time.
 
2013-03-31 07:57:26 AM  

GeneralJim: So, the handful of corrupt scientists - as I have often said, less than a dozen - are busy changing the historical records to make it LOOK like it has warmed more.  And, this isn't a wild conspiracy theory.


You believe that a dozen scientists are somehow rigging all the temperature records for the entire world... and you don't think that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Do you even realize how insane you sound? This is perhaps the most insanely retarded conspiracy theory ever - there's tens of thousands of climate scientists, researchers and environmentalists who would notice if the research changed; are they all in on it too? Because they'd have to be for your conspiracy theory to make sense.

GeneralJim: And, the shroud DOES do that, unless you assume that the medieval forgers had reasonably powerful computers, good graphics software, and UV lasers -- or similar, or more advanced equipment.


Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it. But no, since there's disagreement on which method the forgers used (there are tens of thousands of fake relics dating from the same period, so assuming it was created by forgers is hardly a leap of logic), you immediately leap to "Jesus must have given off a burst of magical radiation when he ascended into heaven that painted a picture of the European dude that medieval Christians thought he looked like on the shroud he was buried in!"... because that's clearly the logical, scientific conclusion.

Again, I have to ask: do you even realize how insane you sound? Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
 
2013-03-31 10:13:53 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
No, they have as much backing as God, or Jehovah.  Jesus was a real person, and the religion was started by people who traveled and lived with him.  That is not true of those you name. It is, however, rather similar to Buddhism.


bullshiat.  100 percent unequivocal bullshiat.  Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".
 
2013-03-31 10:14:55 AM  

Gunther:

GeneralJim: If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?

Ah, the old "argument from ignorance" - your average Farker isn't gonna know howmedieval forgers made fake relics like this, therefore it must be real.

Pathetic.

Are you REALLY this dumb, or are you just trolling? Not knowing what an argument from ignorance is is understandable -- from you, anyway.  If the shroud is a forgery, the image has to have been made in a way the forgers could do.  There was no way for medieval forgers to create the image.  Therefore, they did NOT create the image.  That's pretty freaking straightforward.  The first people to create an image like that on the Shroud of Turin were Italian scientists a couple years ago.  They had to use UV lasers to do it.

 
2013-03-31 10:41:38 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real. It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god. But you need proof, it seems.
You're being a very choice ass.  It doesn't matter to me, other than being of historical interest, whether or not the Shroud is genuine.  If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?
It appears to ME that you just assume that the Shroud is fake, because your faith requires it to be fake.  And, you don't even bother to read what has been posted.  Seriously, is that scientific?


There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image.  It is the rendering software that does this!  And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional.  There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.
 
2013-03-31 10:45:59 AM  

Gunther:

You believe that a dozen scientists are somehow rigging all the temperature records for the entire world... and you don't think that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Do you even realize how insane you sound? This is perhaps the most insanely retarded conspiracy theory ever - there's tens of thousands of climate scientists, researchers and environmentalists who would notice if the research changed; are they all in on it too? Because they'd have to be for your conspiracy theory to make sense.

Thank you for once again demonstrating your prodigious ignorance.  Let me show you what you wish to ignore....

First, watch how NOAA's temperatures change over time:

climate-skeptic.typepad.com


 

And, here is what has happened to NASA's temperatures, as shown by their releases:


jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-31 10:48:47 AM  

Gunther:

Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
No, not as long as they are as stupid as you are, and they generally are. Well, close, anyway.
 
2013-03-31 10:53:54 AM  

Gunther:

Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
Oh, yeah, and you're either lying, full of shiat, or both...  when you say the above, you're just begging to be proven wrong.  So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.  And, even in this thread alone, it is nowhere near "literally every reply."
 
2013-03-31 11:06:35 AM  

Gunther:

Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it.
Seeing as you are a lying sack, I'm going to need you to point out what you mean here.
 
2013-03-31 11:13:40 AM  

frepnog:

bullshiat. 100 percent unequivocal bullshiat. Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".
So, you're a bit logic challenged, eh?  Okay, a step at a time.  Saul of Tarsus had his conversion on the road to Damascus.  The conversion?  He went from a persecutor of the new Church, to probably its most devoted fan.  If he was persecuting the Church, he was NOT the one to form it, now, was he?
 
2013-03-31 11:21:25 AM  
GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.
 
2013-03-31 11:22:57 AM  

Mock26:

There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image. It is the rendering software that does this! And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional. There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.

Wrong again -- but at least you manage to be cocksure while spouting error.  Scientists tried to create the same effect in the 1970s, and could not.  They got a 3-D image, all right, but the image looked like a bunch of cardboard cutouts stacked on each other.  From the Wikipedia entry:

In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed a photograph of the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer. They found that, unlike any photograph they had analyzed, the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. The researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.

 
2013-03-31 11:27:26 AM  

mooseyfate:

GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.
It's the time for miracles.  Try sticking your head up a rabbit's ass, and checking for eggs. Happy Easter!
 
2013-03-31 11:40:43 AM  

GeneralJim: So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.


No, you asserted that heat could not singe one side of a material or fiber.

I was contradicting that with factual information.
 
2013-03-31 11:40:46 AM  

GeneralJim: mooseyfate: GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.It's the time for miracles.  Try sticking your head up a rabbit's ass, and checking for eggs. Happy Easter!


Rabbits and eggs. Yet another stupid thing Christians came up with. Seems the only thing Christianity is actually good at us getting people to believe the stupidest, most ridiculously obvious fake bullshiat in the history if man.

/no really, he caused the Red Sea to part
//seriously, he walked on water
///I shiat you not, she was a married virgin and she gave birth to the son of God
//Okay, for realsies this time, I'm totally serious: Jesus ascended to heaven through this body-bag. Check it out and leave donations to his glory at the door, I'll make sure he gets it
/Christians will believe anything. People in general will believe anything
//Just look at Scientology
 
2013-03-31 12:26:52 PM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.

No, you asserted that heat could not singe one side of a material or fiber.

I was contradicting that with factual information.

Erm, my post was to Gunther. Silly mistake, or outed alt? If it's an alt, it's one of the great trolls of all time.

But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.  Check the Wikipedia entry on the Shroud.  The conclusions are all in the HF radiative arena.  Nobody seems willing to take a guess at the CAUSE of the radiation, though....

 
2013-03-31 12:27:49 PM  

GeneralJim: Let me show you what you wish to ignore....


Your pair of unsourced gif images have totally convinced now that NOAA and NASA are faking their data as part of some worldwide conspiracy theory. Oh wait; that's stupid and you're still crazy.

GeneralJim: even in this thread alone, it is nowhere near "literally every reply."

The word "literally" has been used as an intensifier for well over a hundred years and that usage is recognized by literally every major dictionary. For instance, here's the Oxford, Merriam-Webster. and wiktionary definitions. So you're not only a grammar nazi, you're a really, really crappy grammar nazi.

GeneralJim: Gunther: Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it.

Seeing as you are a lying sack, I'm going to need you to point out what you mean here.


Here's the wiki page. Note how people aren't sure how it was produced but there's a dozen or so possibilities listed. Note that for most the argument against is something like "However, according to Fanti and Moroni, this does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level", or "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics" or some other criticism that boils down to "these guys that have devoted their lives to trying to prove the shroud is real don't buy it but aren't going into specifics".

Oh, and before you jump all over the "people aren't sure how it was produced " thing; it's an incredibly fragile piece of cloth that's hundreds of years old and is in the possession of very protective owners who don't want it to undergo rigorous and potentially damaging testing. That we don't know the specifics of how it was made isn't surprising, and isn't reason to assume divine farking intervention.
 
2013-03-31 12:29:34 PM  

omeganuepsilon:

I was contradicting that with factual information.
Oh, I get it now...  I was using your post as an illustration of a post in which I was not being called crazy, for Gunther's benefit.  Sorry for the mix-up.
 
2013-03-31 12:41:16 PM  

GeneralJim: Mock26: There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image. It is the rendering software that does this! And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional. There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.
Wrong again -- but at least you manage to be cocksure while spouting error.  Scientists tried to create the same effect in the 1970s, and could not.  They got a 3-D image, all right, but the image looked like a bunch of cardboard cutouts stacked on each other.  From the Wikipedia entry:In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed a photograph of the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer. They found that, unlike any photograph they had analyzed, the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. The researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.


Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that?  What was the title of their report?  When did they release it?  On what page did they say that?  Go on, cite your sources.
 
2013-03-31 12:50:23 PM  

Gunther:

Your pair of unsourced gif images have totally convinced now that NOAA and NASA are faking their data as part of some worldwide conspiracy theory. Oh wait; that's stupid and you're still crazy.

You're just too stupid to spend much time on.  The NOAA data comes from NOAA, and says so.   The NASA data comes from NASA, and says so.  And you're too stupid to know what it means, and *I* said so before.  Thanks for backing me up.  Just a quick touch on some of your other stupid mistakes, and I've GOT to go to bed...

It's not "literally" that's the problem -- the problem is that you are suggesting that most posts ("literally every post," even if you are nearly illiterate in your word usage, that should mean "the vast majority" at least) claim I'm crazy.  In this thread, that's pretty much only you, and perhaps a couple of other atheist faithful.  Besides which, nothing I've said is outrageous -- only the straw men you have set up have been retarded.

Note how, in the Wikipedia entry, the "other" hypotheses have been eliminated -- they're giving the HISTORY of the ideas, not just the current thoughts.  Try not to be so proud of being ignorant.  The ones left are radiant energy of high frequency.  That is NOT something that medieval forgers could do.

Nowhere in this thread have I said that it is divine intervention which made that image.  I have said, repeatedly and correctly, that the idea that the Shroud of Turin was made by medieval forgers has been falsified by the type of image it is.  It was not medieval forgers.  It is now time to come up with another hypothesis.  I have said no more than that.  I am certainly not responsible for your stupidity, nor for things you assume about my position through that stupidity.  If you want to converse with me, you can either deal with what I have said, and NOT what you fantasize about what I have said, or you can fark off -- I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to correct your failure to read what I said properly before even discussing the topic at hand.  You have yet to say anything from which I can learn something new, and I am not willing to bet so much of my time on what is clearly a long shot with amazingly long odds.  Wise up, or shut up.

 
2013-03-31 12:55:55 PM  

Mock26:

Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that? What was the title of their report? When did they release it? On what page did they say that? Go on, cite your sources.

Fark you.  It's cited in the Wikipedia Shroud article -- look it up yourself.  I'm tired of lazy jackasses saying "cite it, cite it" when they run out of arguments.
 
2013-03-31 01:01:59 PM  
Holy fark, the thread that never ends, let it go.....it's gone.

/er..GeneralJim, why is it your purpose to come off as an a**hole?, you cannot converse with people in real life  the way you do here, so why?   not just to pick on you you but to others who do the same thing
 
2013-03-31 01:26:36 PM  

GeneralJim: You're just too stupid to spend much time on.  The NOAA data comes from NOAA, and says so.   The NASA data comes from NASA, and says so


If it comes from NASA and NOAA and isn't just a bunch of BS you made up, then you'll be able to link to the raw data on their website. Give us a goddamn source or admit you're lying.

GeneralJim: It's not "literally" that's the problem -- the problem is that you are suggesting that most posts ("literally every post," even if you are nearly illiterate in your word usage, that should mean "the vast majority" at least) claim I'm crazy


I've just re-read this thread; most posters responding to you in this thread seem to think you're some variety of crazy/troll/asshole/liar.

GeneralJim: Note how, in the Wikipedia entry, the "other" hypotheses have been eliminated


OK, I'm just gonna repost what I wrote in my last post:

Gunther: Note that for most the argument against is something like "However, according to Fanti and Moroni, this does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level", or "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics" or some other criticism that boils down to "these guys that have devoted their lives to trying to prove the shroud is real don't buy it but aren't going into specifics".

 
2013-03-31 01:53:48 PM  

GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.


Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.
 
2013-03-31 01:57:15 PM  

GeneralJim: Mock26: Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that? What was the title of their report? When did they release it? On what page did they say that? Go on, cite your sources.
Fark you.  It's cited in the Wikipedia Shroud article -- look it up yourself.  I'm tired of lazy jackasses saying "cite it, cite it" when they run out of arguments.


Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims.  Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!

Well played, Jimmy Boy, well played.  My 5-year old nephew would be impressed with your childish response.
 
2013-03-31 02:21:05 PM  

GeneralJim: Surool: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.

Who said they would have to be "instant" converts?  Nice goalpost move.  People who traveled with Jesus, and other witnesses, made it grow over time.


I have to give you credit for you goalpost move, but you're the one who set the initial time at the start of the church. They would have been lucky enough to have a couple dozen who were impressed enough to start a church worshipping him. Even then, it's only based on an assumption, not evidence.

Or are you saying the hundreds of thousands didn't convert until after they'd started the church?

So go ahead... move those goal posts to the first couple hundred years of the religion and say that by "start" you meant "established"... after the various groups of living men (not 'god') voted on what can and can't be part of the religion.
 
2013-03-31 03:38:46 PM  

GeneralJim: frepnog: bullshiat. 100 percent unequivocal bullshiat. Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".So, you're a bit logic challenged, eh?  Okay, a step at a time.  Saul of Tarsus had his conversion on the road to Damascus.  The conversion?  He went from a persecutor of the new Church, to probably its most devoted fan.  If he was persecuting the Church, he was NOT the one to form it, now, was he?


i said "arguably" because while he may not have invented the religion, without question without him it would have died.
 
2013-03-31 08:42:58 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.


Can we stop talking about Scientology and get back to talking about the shroud?
 
2013-03-31 09:51:30 PM  

GeneralJim: No, that's not true. It matters not if there is iron oxide, or a bit of pigment, or Rustoleum on the cloth -- the image is composed of threads which are charred on the OUTSIDE ONLY, not of pigment.


How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.

Also, that the image on the shroud produces a 3D image when processed in a certain way doesn't mean anything at all in terms of establishing an inexplicable origin. My Boobies in this thread describes a method by which the coloration of the cloth correlates to the "elevation" of the facial features. This isn't evidence of magic or an unknown process. It's an entirely prosaic side effect of the way the image appears.
 
2013-03-31 10:29:56 PM  

wiredroach: How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body?


He's talking about the exposed side of the threads where we see the image.  The image is not "deep" into the cloth/threads.
 
2013-04-01 02:30:59 AM  

weirdneighbour:

/er..GeneralJim, why is it your purpose to come off as an a**hole?
Oh, boy, how exciting!   Another goddam mind-reader.
 
2013-04-01 02:36:16 AM  

Gunther:

If it comes from NASA and NOAA and isn't just a bunch of BS you made up, then you'll be able to link to the raw data on their website. Give us a goddamn source or admit you're lying.
Bugger off.  Liar?  I didn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

At least you're consistent -- the Shroud of Turin, to you, HAS to be a fake, because you don't believe in God. Data showing NASA and NOAA cheating on the data HAVE to be fake, because you DO believe in Global Warming. VERY scientific.
 
2013-04-01 02:40:03 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.

Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.
Try it some time...  Hint:  You need large amounts of energy, over a very short period of time. This was, IIRC, 2011 -- at least the publishing of the report. At the time the scientists were the first to re-create the image process. It can't be THAT easy...
 
2013-04-01 02:42:53 AM  

Mock26:

Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims. Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!
Ah yes, the "you won't do whatever I say, so I win" defense.  The links aren't hidden or secret; the Wikipedia article on the "Shroud of Turin" has the links.
 
2013-04-01 02:47:13 AM  

wiredroach:

How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.
No, look at what I have said.  I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.
 
2013-04-01 03:00:17 AM  

wiredroach:

Also, that the image on the shroud produces a 3D image when processed in a certain way doesn't mean anything at all in terms of establishing an inexplicable origin. My Boobies in this thread describes a method by which the coloration of the cloth correlates to the "elevation" of the facial features. This isn't evidence of magic or an unknown process. It's an entirely prosaic side effect of the way the image appears.

Ha!  Love the filter-pwns.  Okay, if you skip the facts about the nature of the image made, it is theoretically possible to create an image related to the closeness of the cloth to skin when draped over it.  Two questions come to mind:  First, why in the HELL would that be the objective of someone making a fraudulent religious relic?  Second, this was thought of by the scientists in the 1970s -- they tried having artists aim for the "correct" result, and they tried using a computer to generate the image, and nothing worked.  While it is possible that medieval relic forgers were more talented than modern artists, they would not have any way to check their work.  And, again, one has to ask why they would be aiming for something they could not see.   If you found a CD alleged to be of Jesus' voice, and claimed that it was not from the time of Jesus, but a medieval forgery, it would be a very similar situation.  How would medieval forgers make a playable CD in the first place?
 
2013-04-01 03:06:37 AM  
GeneralJim: Ididn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim
 
If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that -  you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".
 
It's amazing. Utterly amazing.   You're essentially admitting it is impossible for anyone to convince you that you're wrong, no matter what. Evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as having been doctored by those evil conspirators.
 
2013-04-01 03:13:25 AM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.

Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.Try it some time...  Hint:  You need large amounts of energy, over a very short period of time. This was, IIRC, 2011 -- at least the publishing of the report. At the time the scientists were the first to re-create the image process. It can't be THAT easy...


Artists and craftsmen often excel where scientists' creative skills fall short.
 
And no, you don't need large amounts of energy to ever so lightly char cloth.  
 
Your argument is the mental equivalent of looking at a paintbrush and say, oh, the Mona Lisa and saying, "It's impossible for that brush to create something like that."
 
Want a thorough explanation of scortching, read here:
 
http://shroudstory.com/2012/02/20/image-by-scorching-heat-or-science -b y-hot-air/
 
An even simpler way:
 
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-make-your-very -o wn-turin-shroud.html
 
: )
 
2013-04-01 03:14:50 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
/oops
 
2013-04-01 03:26:46 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.No, look at what I have said.  I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.


Just to re-iterate, for those thinking a bit more rationally than GeneralJim here:
 
people.virginia.edu
 
Because something similar  can be created using a particular mechanism does not mean that it was created using something analogous. One can create, say, a plastic whistle using a 3D printer, but finding a plastic whistle does not mean it was created with a 3D printer.
 
2013-04-01 08:12:28 AM  

Gunther: I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim.




Since you're going to bookmark it, here's another one for you to reference, Time-Traveling Exploding-Photon Jesus.

Also doubles as the thread where he breaks out the Urantia Book.
 
2013-04-01 08:26:18 AM  

Gunther: GeneralJim: Ididn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim. 
 
If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that -  you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".
 
It's amazing. Utterly amazing.   You're essentially admitting it is impossible for anyone to convince you that you're wrong, no matter what. Evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as having been doctored by those evil conspirators.


That's pretty much all I got from his long winded, annoying, smug-ass posts. Can't believe you stuck it out that long.
 
2013-04-01 08:43:00 AM  

Gunther:

If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that - you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".

What is it with the entire warmer alarmist crowd?  You spend so much effort writing what you wish people opposing you would say...  and that accomplishes nothing.

You set up near impossibilities.  Take NASA -- they don't keep their replaced data on-line.  I mean, they're NOT retarded, unlike some of their sycophants.  Yeah, right, there's the "current_data" file and the "data_before_we_fraudulently_altered_it" file.  Next best thing, however, is the following....  a guy notices that the NASA GISS data set has changed, with a list of the changes, the only big one to correct a Y2K mistake by James Hansen.  He has a copy of the old file, and downloads the new data from NASA, to play with off-line.   Months later, he goes back and the data is different.  There are no notices about the new changes, or lists of changes made, which is against ALL government data regulations.  The data that was there is scrubbed.  So, he downloads a copy of the "new" data, making three different copies that he has.  He writes about it to the author of an auditing blog, who goes to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and gets a copy of the file which has been deleted / replaced for himself -- and the file matches the first guy's file that he got from the NASA site.  This story is published, and shortly thereafter, the record from the Wayback is scrubbed.

So, the audit blog guy, with three data sets, plots the changes to the original one that NASA acknowledges in red, and the changes they DON'T mention in black.  This is what he gets:


climateaudit.files.wordpress.com

The whole thing has been bipped around, with others confirming it -- except the media isn't interested.

This incident mentioned in Climate Audit

A description of the GISS data wipe on Real Science

The issue discussed by Jennifer Marohasy


And, there are various links in the above articles.  I eagerly await your next round of whiny biatching...

 
2013-04-01 08:46:06 AM  

mooseyfate:

That's pretty much all I got from his long winded, annoying, smug-ass posts.

So, you're cognitively impaired.  Nothing to be ashamed of.
 
2013-04-01 08:59:26 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Want a thorough explanation of scortching, read here:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/02/20/image-by-scorching-heat-or-science -b y-hot-air/

An even simpler way:

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-make-your-very -o wn-turin-shroud.html

: )

Sorry, that's not going to make a tint like the ones on the shroud.  It's like taking a golf cart, and saying it's the same thing as a Tesla Roadster: "See?  Just the same -- four wheels, they're both red, both powered by batteries and electric motors, steering wheel, brake."

Scraping cloth with charcoal and putting it in the heat of a spotlight is going to char the fibers right through, and it doesn't even look like Colin (who is the subject of both your links) is aware that each fiber is charred just a micron or so deep, otherwise he'd devise something other than an Easy-Bake Oven setup.

 
2013-04-01 09:08:33 AM  
It's funny. I don't know how many times it has been covered in religion threads that making absolute claims of something being "impossible" is not a logical or reasonable position. Such as the absolute claim that "god does not exist".
 
And here we have the green thread-shiatter making the absolute claim that "medieval forgers could not have made the shroud".
 
That about says it all.
 
2013-04-01 09:27:20 AM  
Wow, GeneralJim is a farking nutjob.
 
2013-04-01 09:58:20 AM  

Farking Canuck:

It's funny. I don't know how many times it has been covered in religion threads that making absolute claims of something being "impossible" is not a logical or reasonable position. Such as the absolute claim that "god does not exist".
 
And here we have the green thread-shiatter making the absolute claim that "medieval forgers could not have made the shroud".
 
That about says it all.

Again, you demonstrate your inability to use logic properly.  If I claim John the Baptist was in Jerusalem, and one day later was in Rome, and the day after that, in San Francisco, taken by an Arab camel train, that's impossible.  In addition to the not-possible-for-camels speed necessary to make the trip, San Fransisco wasn't founded until almost two thousand years after John the Baptist's death.  Besides, I said medieval forgers could not have made the shroud without a UV laser and a 3-D rendering computer.  So, in addition to the idiocy, we have the dishonesty.

If you are stupid enough to think that medieval relic forgers had UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers, you need to do the honorable thing, and go drown yourself.  If you think that medieval forgers found out some other way to "print" those precise images, image printing that Western science was unable to reproduce until 2011, images which could not be viewed without a computer and reasonable software, and which the computer technology of the mid-1970s was unable to generate, the cure is the same.

And you equate the inability to perform this specific, highly technological achievement to the blanket statement "there is no God?"


writersessaysph.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report