Replies

> As to my statement "you don't read," YOU admitted it. You said ". . . left unread beyond the first few non sequitur sentences."

Wow. What an amazing ability to twist the truth into lies you have. The fact that I don't read every word you write means that I don't read. Simply stunning. Work for the Clintons, do you?

> You demand unreasonable "proof" for something that does not need to be proved to invalidate the carbon 14 test.

I simply ask for evidence that the shroud is older than the patches. You have failed to provide it, or any evidence that such proof exists. After this length of time, it is clear that you do not have such evidence.

> Now you have pulled out a brief CV for yourself that we have no way of checking...

BS. Go to my FR profile. Go to the website listed. Check the resume shown. Then go to the US patent office, and check the patents listed; call my current employers if you like and ask for my work phone number, or even call my supervisor or co-workers. But, of course, that would require you to actually check facts.

> You claim to be an "engineer" and now you claim to be an "author" and an an "inventor"

Claims easy checked, if you have a few brain cells to rub together.

> Quite frankly, Orion, I don't believe you.

Not my problem. If you care to believe lies, rather than spend thirty seconds checking facts... well, that would explain many things!

I'm still awaiting he answers to two simple, and so far ignored, questions:
1: What evidence do you have that the shroud is older than the theoretical patches
2: If there's a mystery with two explanations, one of which is "fraud," and the other is "mircale," which should a rational person consider most likely?

Orionblamblam, you are restating the problems again. You seem to do this frequently:

1) The challenge to the carbon 14 date is not that the cloth might be older than the material tested. The point is that what was tested is not representative of the cloth. It is an anomalous sample. That has been unquestionably demonstrated. Thus the tests on a sample that is not representative of the cloth cannot be used to determine the age of the cloth.

By carbon 14 testing, we don’t how old the cloth is. However, there are many other indicators that do suggest that the cloth is older. You may choose to ignore all of them but you cannot defend an invalid test. Period.

2) You ask us to choose between a fraud and a miracle. Why? Why? Why? It has been repeatedly stated that a significant possibility for image formation is a natural phenomenon which is neither fraud nor miracle. That is why some people believe that you don’t read the material before popping off. I must say I agree. That seems to be the case.

And so what if the image was miraculously induced. Must all people, whether they believe in miracles or not, yield only to what you deem is rational. Every miracle can be argued to be fraud. Therefore, acording to blamy-blamy there can be no such thing as a miracle because fraud is a possibility. The rest of the world be damned because orionblamblam doesn’t believe in miracles. Forget the majority of the population. Orionblamblam knows better than anyone.

For every scientific explanation you have some off-the-wall exceptional possibility. String them together and you have a serial absurdity. Can you not see how foolish you look? I don’t see a whole lot of people coming to your defense and saying, “Hey, it doesn’t matter if they tested the wrong thing, the results must be trusted."