Rich Savage wants to debate with Shroud of Turin detractors. He has been in communications with me. He has done a lot of work. He wants our help. He has sent this letter to me and asked me to post it:
Triggered by the article entitled, “An invitation to discuss the Shroud of Turin…,” back on 7/26, I had asked Dan to be our spokesperson in the scheme introduced below. I hadn’t really expected that he would have the time — but as we say in NY regarding our lottery, “Hey, you never know!”
Unfortunately, I was right — however, Dan did offer to help us set up a blog for this purpose.
1. Here’s the idea
1.1. It would be very good to convince ‘the world’ that the Shroud probably is authentic.
1.2. (It would also be very good to show up our notable detractors very publically – generally, they deserve it.)
1.3. To do this, however, we can’t just present our side to the public, then their side — and then, why their side is wrong. We need to let them present their own side to the public, and tell the public why they think that our side is wrong. We would then need to respond to their claims, and they to ours. Etc. Etc.
1.4. In other words, we need to have public debate with these detractors.
1.5. But then, we also need to win.
1.6. But then, if we can have actually effective public debate with these guys, winning should be a cinch…
1.7. But then, public debate is almost never effective (“sideshow” is the word that comes to mind)!
1.8. But then, I’ve been studying this human problem with effective debate for over 40 years (off and on) and now think that I know how to fix it.
1.9. As an introduction, my alleged solution is
1.9.1. written,
1.9.2. real-time,
1.9.3. on-line,
1.9.4. systematic and,
1.9.5. Unhurried (patience might be the critical virtue here).
1.10.And further, I think that we followers of Dan’s blog have more than enough relevant knowledge and talent to easily win any actually effective debate with any of Dan’s detractors…
2. So,
2.1. If anyone is interested, please let me know. My email address is rsavage@nycap.rr.com, my stage name is Jabba, and my real name is Richard Savage (“Rich” is fine.)
2.2. If those interested end up thinking we can do it, we will give it a try.
2.3. We’ll have to work out the teamwork as we go…
2.4. If we get that far, we’ll need an official spokesperson, and I’d be happy to do that. But then, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else could do it better – so, if anyone else becomes interested in that job, just let me know and we can settle this democratically…
2.5. Also, we’ll need a website or blog. I do have a website, but then: it is singularly unpopular; I’m a total klutz at running it; and I’m not sure that my web program (Dream Weaver – CS4) is up to the task anyway. But again, Dan has offered to help us with a blog…
2.6. Left to me, we’d first approach Skinny and Bearded with our proposal (though, there might be much better targets).
2.7. If they’re not interested, we could try CSI, or Joe Nickell specifically — or, whomever.
2.8. To see my model for “actually effective debate,” please go to http://messiahornot.com/DebateExplanation2.php
2.9. To see that I’m not just a kook, you can check out my very brief autobiography at http://messiahornot.com/Biography2.php.
2.10.But then, for some reason, I really do like numbers…
Thanks,
Rich Savage (Jabba)
I will help Rich set up a debate blog. That is easy. I think the hard part, perhaps the near-impossible part, will be to find a worthy opponent who will stick around. I tried one time with a zealous Dawkins fan who expressed interest in debating about the shroud. He quit as soon as I put up some facts. The subject was boring, he said. There was my attempt to engage Kyle Hill. Kyle is smart and it would make for an interesting debate opponent and perhaps Rich can get him to debate. As for the people who do the YouTube “show,” Skinny and Bearded, who challenged me, they seem to have no interest in doing research. I can’t imagine debating them.
If you wish to join Rich or help him, please contact him. You can do so through his email address or by comment here. As I said, I will help Rich get going. I will help him set it up. No need for Dream Weaver or any software.
Hello Rich (and anyone who will read this).
If you ever do a real debate about the autheticity of the Shroud with a sceptic, please, put this subject on the table : In the STURP study entitled “Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the
Shroud of Turin”, Miller and Pellicori made one VERY interesting obseervation. It’s an observation that applies to another aspect of the question we discuss recently. They notice that, on the frontal and on the dorsal part, there is some scourge marks that are not visible in normal light but only visible in UV light. It’s pretty much like some tiny blood stains can only be detected with UV lights on a crime scene.
I think it’s a very good confirmation of what I said previously about the probable superficiality of the scourge marks on the cloth. To me, that’s why we can’t see these marks on the backlight photos. This observation fits very well with the idea that the scourges are mainly a superficial transfer of clotted blood on the cloth surface, unlike most of the other blood stains who were more fresh and/or more important in size so they could go way deeper into the cloth (many of them goes all the way to the other side of the Shroud). And this observation proves that the transfer of clotted blood from these scourge marks wasn’t done at the same exact intensity and there is some scourges who are more perfectly shaped and much more evident than others. This tends to prove that we are in presence of a NATURAL transfer phenomenon from clotted blood and not an artistic forgery done with real human blood or with red ochre and vermilion. In a forgery, we would expect to see scourge marks about the same intensity everywhere and, consequently, we would expect to see all of them very easily. It’s NOT the case on the Shroud !
Joe Nickell, Dr. Karl and all the other sceptics will have to explain this to me and to you !!! :-)
Yannick,
– Good points.
– Could the basic “invisibility” be explained simply by aging?
– Please send me your email address so I can put it on my team distribution list. You won’t get any pressure from me — but sounds like you have a lot to offer if you have the time.
— Rich
No problem Rich. My email adress is : yannick1973@hotmail.com
Anybody interested in the Shroud can feel free to contact me anytime ! That’s always interesting for me to talk about this subject.
Oh, I forget. For your idea that the invisibility of some scourge marks could be explain by aging, it’s interesting but I think the simplest answer is that some marks were better transferred to the cloth than others. If it was so easy to make those few marks disappeared with time, why it isn’t the case for the vast majority of the other scourge marks ? No, since the scourge marks are a direct contact transfer of blood material from clotted scourge wounds, I think it’s very normal that some marks were better transferred on the cloth than others¸. To me, that’s the best explanation to understand why some are more complete and more defined than others and why a few marks are not visible to the naked eye. Those “invisible” marks were surely done by wounds not very humid and/or located in a way to permit just a slight contact with the cloth. That’s the best way I can explain those observations made by Miller and Pellicori.
To emphasise my point about the scourge marks made of blood, I just want to let you know 2 interesting findings that were made by Alan Adler. He found that the only apparent alteration of the blood stains due to time was microscopic abrasions on the surface of the stains. That’s all ! And consequently, he found tiny little blood particles in every part of the cloth. They were so tiny that you need a microscope to see them ! Those little particles of blood were scattered everywhere on the cloth because of the many handling of the cloth and the many folding and unfolding of the cloth. So, I really don’t think that the time factor could have caused the disappearance of some scourges marks made of blood. If there are some scourge marks invisible to the naked eye so that we need UV lights to see them, I think the most probable answer his that those few scourge marks came from a clotted blood transfer that didn’t made a good result. I think the findings of Adler demonstrate that the blood stains on the Shroud are very resistant to the time factor and are still almost intact after all these years. For me, it’s a good indication that this cloth was kept with great care since the beginning !
Yannick,
– Thanks. Your memory, and knowledge of the details, should stand us in good stead. I can remember the basic claims and findings pretty well, but not the details. And in real debate, it’s the details that win the day.
When it comes to the Shroud, everything is in the details !!! YOU MUST pay real attention to the details to understand this cloth. It’s not easy because it demand a lot of reading of scientific articles… But it pay the price at the end because it’s more easy to make up your mind about it.