Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:For those of faith, the Sudarium of Oviedo -- and its remarkable correlation to the wounds reflected on the Shroud of Turin -- is a gift to help faith remain strong. To those with no faith, it is more subject for ridicule (proving that no sign, no matter how compelling, is adequate). Remarkably, as with the Shroud, scientific study continues to support claims of validity ...

I will have nothing more to say on this subject. It is up to the reader. I'm just calling this cloth to your attention here, because this cloth receives virtually no publicity and yet it tends to affirm claims of authenticity of the shroud.

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

A report by forensic scientists who have studied the Sudarium:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ad hoc hypothesis

An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Of course, if this objection is taken seriously, then no experiment on ESP can ever fail. Whatever the results, one can always say they were caused by paranormal psychic forces, either the ones being tested or others not being tested.

Martin Gardner reports on this type of ad hoc hypothesizing reaching a ludicrous peak with paraphysicist Helmut Schmidt who put cockroaches in a box where they could give themselves electric shocks. One would assume that cockroaches do not like to be shocked and would give themselves shocks at a chance rate or less, if cockroaches can learn from experience. The cockroaches gave themselves more electric shocks than predicted by chance. Schmidt concluded that "because he hated cockroaches, maybe it was his pk that influenced the randomizer!" (Gardner, p. 59)

Ad hoc hypotheses are common in defense of the pseudoscientific theory known as biorhythm theory. For example, there are very many people who do not fit the predicted patterns of biorhythm theory. Rather than accept this fact as refuting evidence of the theory, a new category of people is created: the arrhythmic. In short, whenever the theory does not seem to work, the contrary evidence is systematically discounted. Advocates of biorhythm theory claimed that the theory could be used to accurately predict the sex of unborn children. However, W. S. Bainbridge, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the chance of predicting the sex of an unborn child using biorhythms was 50/50, the same as flipping a coin. An expert in biorhythms tried unsuccessfully to predict accurately the sexes of the children in Bainbridge's study based on Bainbridge's data. The expert's spouse suggested to Bainbridge an interesting ad hoc hypothesis, namely, that the cases where the theory was wrong probably included many homosexuals with indeterminate sex identities!

Astrologers are often fond of using statistical data and analysis to impress us with the scientific nature of astrology. Of course, a scientific analysis of the statistical data does not always pan out for the astrologer. In those cases, the astrologer can make the data fit the astrological paradigm by the ad hoc hypothesis that those who do not fit the mold have other, unknown influences that counteract the influence of the dominant planets.

Using ad hoc hypotheses is not limited to pseudoscientists. Another type of ad hoc hypothesis occurs in science when a new scientific theory is proposed which conflicts with an established theory and which lacks an essential explanatory mechanism. An ad hoc hypothesis is proposed to explain what the new theory cannot explain. For example, when Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift he could not explain how continents move. It was suggested that gravity was the force behind the movement of continents, though there was no scientific evidence for this notion. In fact, scientists could and did show that gravity was too weak a force to account for the movement of continents. Alexis du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move. Stephen Jay Gould noted that "this ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation." (Gould, p. 160)

Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time.

It is always more reasonable to apply Occam's razor than to offer speculative ad hoc hypotheses just to maintain the possibility of something supernatural or paranormal.

JoltinJoe wrote:

That's your rebuttal? I know I said that I had no further comment, but that was before you said something so stupid.

Scientific examination and digital imaging of the two cloths confirm that they share 70 wounds in common to the front of the head, and 50 to the backside ... and your response is to claim this is ad hoc reasoning.

Draw whatever conclusion you want, but this cloth has been in Spain since the 7th century with the claim that it was the cloth to have covered Christ's head after crucifixion, and it shares numerous coincidences in pathology with the cloth in Turin said to be the burial shroud of Christ. If these cloths are frauds, the guys who made them were the most brilliant people ever.

JoltinJoe wrote:

That's your rebuttal? I know I said that I had no further comment, but that was before you said something so stupid.

Scientific examination and digital imaging of the two cloths confirm that they share 70 wounds in common to the front of the head, and 50 to the backside ... and your response is to claim this is ad hoc reasoning.

Draw whatever conclusion you want, but this cloth has been in Spain since the 7th century with the claim that it was the cloth to have covered Christ's head after crucifixion, and it shares numerous coincidences in pathology with the cloth in Turin said to be the burial shroud of Christ. If these cloths are frauds, the guys who made them were the most brilliant people ever.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:

That's your rebuttal? I know I said that I had no further comment, but that was before you said something so stupid.

Scientific examination and digital imaging of the two cloths confirm that they share 70 wounds in common to the front of the head, and 50 to the backside ... and your response is to claim this is ad hoc reasoning.

Draw whatever conclusion you want, but this cloth has been in Spain since the 7th century with the claim that it was the cloth to have covered Christ's head after crucifixion, and it shares numerous coincidences in pathology with the cloth in Turin said to be the burial shroud of Christ. If these cloths are frauds, the guys who made them were the most brilliant people ever.

Just another worthless relic, Joe, like the Bible, there to keep the oppressed believers in their place. The Shroud is like a souvenir from Disney World, land of fantasy.

The guys who are perpetuation this fraud aren't geniuses, they're capitalists, making a mint off dumb Catholic tourists. Wonder if I can order a 100% pure cotton Shroud hankie online to use as a jack towel?

Cap'n Cat wrote:Man, Joe, aren't you embarrassed?

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Man, Joe, aren't you embarrassed?

No, I'd be embarrassed if I went to UNI.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, I'd be embarrassed if I went to UNI.

I'll assume you are embarrassed, Joe.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
I'll assume you are embarrassed, Joe.

You're assuming I went to UNI??

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You're assuming I went to UNI??

Uh-huh, mortally embarrassed.

Now, the Croatian Holocaust?

JoltinJoe wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Uh-huh, mortally embarrassed.

Now, the Croatian Holocaust?

No, not going to respond. Speaking of embarrassed, don't you guys get embarrassed when you post anti-Catholic bile and no body cares?

For the record, you overstate Catholic complicity in the Croatian holocaust. If your point was simply that there were members of the Catholic clergy who were shamefully complicit in the fascist government, I would agree with you. But claiming that things that the pope said about "Croatian nationalism" before the war is evidence of his complicity is pretty thin.

You can claim in retrospect that Pius XII's means of opposing the deportation/slaughter of Jews were imprudent and ineffective, but there is no historical doubt that he opposed the events in Croatia.

This discussion from wikipedia is pretty balanced:

According to historian Michael Phayer, "it is impossible to believe that Stepinac and the Vatican did not know that the Ustasha murders amounted to genocide".[11] Cornwell considers the Catholic involvement important because of: "the Vatican's knowledge of the atrocities, Pacelli's failure to use his good offices to intervene, and the complicity it represented in the Final Solution being planned in northern Europe".[2]

Pius XII was a long-standing supported of Croat nationalism; he hosted a national pilgrimate to Rome in November 1939, for the cause of the canonization of Nicola Tavelic, and largely "confirmed the Ustashe perception of history".[16] In a meeting with Primate Stepinac, Pius XII reiterated the epithet of Pope Leo X, that the Croats were "the outpost of Christianity", a term which itself implied that the Orthodox Serbs were not true Christians.[16] Pius XII foretold to Stepinac that:

"The hope of a better future seems to be smiling on you, a future in which the relations between Church and State in your country will be regulated in harmonious action to the advantage of both".[16]

Undersecretary of State Montini (later elected Pope Paul VI) was responsible for "day-to-day matters concerning Croatia and Poland".[19] He reported to Pius XII on a daily basis, and heard of the Ustaša atrocities in 1941.[19] In March 1942, Montini asked the Ustaša representative to the Vatican "Is it possible that these atrocities have taken place?", and responded that he would view such accusations with "considerable reserve" once the representative called them "lies and propaganda".[19] Montini's fellow Undersecretary Domenico Tardini told the Ustaša representative that the Vatican was willing to indulge the Ustaša regime because: "Croatia is a young state [...] Youngsters often err because of their age. It is therefore not surprising that Croatia also erred".[19]

Stepinac was summoned to Rome in April 1942, where he delivered a nine-page document detailing various misdeeds of Pavelić.[11] This document described the atrocities as "anomalies" that were either unknown or unauthorized by Pavelić himself; it is omitted from the ADSS.[11] However, by 1942 the Vatican "preferred to have Stepinac try to rein the fascists in rather than risk the effect that a papal denunciation would have on the unstable Croatian state".[11]

According to Eugene Tisserant, the future Dean of the College of Cardinals, "we have the list of all clergymen who participated in these atrocities and we shall punish them at the right time to cleanse our conscience of the stain with which they spotted us".[22] Pius XII was well-informed of the involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime, but decided against condemning the regime or even taking action against the involved clergy, who had "joined in the slaughter", fearing that it would lead to schism in the Croatian church or undermine the formation of a future Croatian state.[23]

Phayer contrasts the Vatican's "limited and sketchy" knowledge of the genocide in Poland with "the Croatian case, in which both the nuncio and the head of the church, Bishop Alojzje Stepinac, were in continuous contact with the Holy See while the genocide was being committed".[15] Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione instructed nuncio Marcone that "if your eminence can find a suitable occasion, he should recommend in a discreet manner, that would not be interpreted as an official appeal, that moderation be employed with regard to Jews on Croatian territory. Your Eminence should see to it that [...] the impression of loyal cooperation with the civil authorities be always preserved".[24] According to Phayer, the Vatican "preferred to bring diplomatic pressure on the Ushtasha government instead of challenging the fascists publicly on the immorality of genocide".[21]

However, according to Professor Ronald J. Rychlak "Between 1941 and 1944, the Vatican sent four official letters and made numerous oral pleas and protests regarding the deportation of Jews from Slovakia." Rychlak quotes a letter from Pius himself, dated April 7, 1943:

"The Holy See has always entertained the firm hope that the Slovak government, interpreting also the sentiments of its own people, Catholics almost entirely, would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race. It is therefore with great pain that the Holy See has learned of the continued transfers of such a nature from the territory of the Republic. This pain is aggravated further now that it appears from various reports that the Slovak government intends to proceed with the total removal of the Jewish residents of Slovakia, not even sparing women and children. The Holy See would fail in its Divine Mandate if it did not deplore these measures, which gravely damage man in his natural right, merely for the reason that these people belong to a certain race."

Rychlak also states: "The following day, a message went out from the Holy See instructing its representative in Bulgaria to take steps in support of Jewish residents who were facing deportation. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of the Jewish Agency for Palestine met with Archbishop Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) “to thank the Holy See for the happy outcome of the steps taken on behalf of the Israelites in Slovakia." Rychlak adds "In October 1942, a message went out from the Vatican to its representatives in Zagreb regarding the “painful situation that spills out against the Jews in Croatia” and instructing them to petition the government for “a more benevolent treatment of those unfortunates.” The Cardinal Secretary of State’s notes reflect that Vatican petitions were successful in getting a suspension of “dispatches of Jews from Croatia” by January 1943, but Germany was applying pressure for “an attitude more firm against the Jews.” Another instruction from the Holy See to its representatives in Zagreb directing them to work on behalf of the Jews went out on March 6, 1943.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, not going to respond. Speaking of embarrassed, don't you guys get embarrassed when you post anti-Catholic bile and no body cares?

For the record, you overstate Catholic complicity in the Croatian holocaust. If your point was simply that there were members of the Catholic clergy who were shamefully complicit in the fascist government, I would agree with you. But claiming that things that the pope said about "Croatian nationalism" before the war is evidence of his complicity is pretty thin.

You can claim in retrospect that Pius XII's means of opposing the deportation/slaughter of Jews were imprudent and ineffective, but there is no historical doubt that he opposed the events in Croatia.

This discussion from wikipedia is pretty balanced:

According to historian Michael Phayer, "it is impossible to believe that Stepinac and the Vatican did not know that the Ustasha murders amounted to genocide".[11] Cornwell considers the Catholic involvement important because of: "the Vatican's knowledge of the atrocities, Pacelli's failure to use his good offices to intervene, and the complicity it represented in the Final Solution being planned in northern Europe".[2]

Pius XII was a long-standing supported of Croat nationalism; he hosted a national pilgrimate to Rome in November 1939, for the cause of the canonization of Nicola Tavelic, and largely "confirmed the Ustashe perception of history".[16] In a meeting with Primate Stepinac, Pius XII reiterated the epithet of Pope Leo X, that the Croats were "the outpost of Christianity", a term which itself implied that the Orthodox Serbs were not true Christians.[16] Pius XII foretold to Stepinac that:

"The hope of a better future seems to be smiling on you, a future in which the relations between Church and State in your country will be regulated in harmonious action to the advantage of both".[16]

Undersecretary of State Montini (later elected Pope Paul VI) was responsible for "day-to-day matters concerning Croatia and Poland".[19] He reported to Pius XII on a daily basis, and heard of the Ustaša atrocities in 1941.[19] In March 1942, Montini asked the Ustaša representative to the Vatican "Is it possible that these atrocities have taken place?", and responded that he would view such accusations with "considerable reserve" once the representative called them "lies and propaganda".[19] Montini's fellow Undersecretary Domenico Tardini told the Ustaša representative that the Vatican was willing to indulge the Ustaša regime because: "Croatia is a young state [...] Youngsters often err because of their age. It is therefore not surprising that Croatia also erred".[19]

Stepinac was summoned to Rome in April 1942, where he delivered a nine-page document detailing various misdeeds of Pavelić.[11] This document described the atrocities as "anomalies" that were either unknown or unauthorized by Pavelić himself; it is omitted from the ADSS.[11] However, by 1942 the Vatican "preferred to have Stepinac try to rein the fascists in rather than risk the effect that a papal denunciation would have on the unstable Croatian state".[11]

According to Eugene Tisserant, the future Dean of the College of Cardinals, "we have the list of all clergymen who participated in these atrocities and we shall punish them at the right time to cleanse our conscience of the stain with which they spotted us".[22] Pius XII was well-informed of the involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime, but decided against condemning the regime or even taking action against the involved clergy, who had "joined in the slaughter", fearing that it would lead to schism in the Croatian church or undermine the formation of a future Croatian state.[23]

Phayer contrasts the Vatican's "limited and sketchy" knowledge of the genocide in Poland with "the Croatian case, in which both the nuncio and the head of the church, Bishop Alojzje Stepinac, were in continuous contact with the Holy See while the genocide was being committed".[15] Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione instructed nuncio Marcone that "if your eminence can find a suitable occasion, he should recommend in a discreet manner, that would not be interpreted as an official appeal, that moderation be employed with regard to Jews on Croatian territory. Your Eminence should see to it that [...] the impression of loyal cooperation with the civil authorities be always preserved".[24] According to Phayer, the Vatican "preferred to bring diplomatic pressure on the Ushtasha government instead of challenging the fascists publicly on the immorality of genocide".[21]

However, according to Professor Ronald J. Rychlak "Between 1941 and 1944, the Vatican sent four official letters and made numerous oral pleas and protests regarding the deportation of Jews from Slovakia." Rychlak quotes a letter from Pius himself, dated April 7, 1943:

"The Holy See has always entertained the firm hope that the Slovak government, interpreting also the sentiments of its own people, Catholics almost entirely, would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race. It is therefore with great pain that the Holy See has learned of the continued transfers of such a nature from the territory of the Republic. This pain is aggravated further now that it appears from various reports that the Slovak government intends to proceed with the total removal of the Jewish residents of Slovakia, not even sparing women and children. The Holy See would fail in its Divine Mandate if it did not deplore these measures, which gravely damage man in his natural right, merely for the reason that these people belong to a certain race."

Rychlak also states: "The following day, a message went out from the Holy See instructing its representative in Bulgaria to take steps in support of Jewish residents who were facing deportation. Shortly thereafter, the secretary of the Jewish Agency for Palestine met with Archbishop Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) “to thank the Holy See for the happy outcome of the steps taken on behalf of the Israelites in Slovakia." Rychlak adds "In October 1942, a message went out from the Vatican to its representatives in Zagreb regarding the “painful situation that spills out against the Jews in Croatia” and instructing them to petition the government for “a more benevolent treatment of those unfortunates.” The Cardinal Secretary of State’s notes reflect that Vatican petitions were successful in getting a suspension of “dispatches of Jews from Croatia” by January 1943, but Germany was applying pressure for “an attitude more firm against the Jews.” Another instruction from the Holy See to its representatives in Zagreb directing them to work on behalf of the Jews went out on March 6, 1943.

One of many catholic atrocities. You must be proud Joe.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
One of many catholic atrocities. You must be proud Joe.

Uh, reading comprehension??

I stated the charges and pretty much showed how the historical record refutes them?

BTW, citing Cornwell any more is pretty lame, since he himself has now repudiated the conclusions of his own book.

andy7171 wrote:I can't even phathom how to pronounce the title of this thread. I'm staying out of it.

JoltinJoe wrote:

andy7171 wrote:I can't even phathom how to pronounce the title of this thread. I'm staying out of it.

FWIW, many people simply call it the Sudarium (Sue-Dar-E-Um) of Christ, but that's a statement of faith.

This thread is about sweet Science, so I used the name of the town where this cloth is housed.

Vidav wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:

That's your rebuttal? I know I said that I had no further comment, but that was before you said something so stupid.

Scientific examination and digital imaging of the two cloths confirm that they share 70 wounds in common to the front of the head, and 50 to the backside ... and your response is to claim this is ad hoc reasoning.

Draw whatever conclusion you want, but this cloth has been in Spain since the 7th century with the claim that it was the cloth to have covered Christ's head after crucifixion, and it shares numerous coincidences in pathology with the cloth in Turin said to be the burial shroud of Christ. If these cloths are frauds, the guys who made them were the most brilliant people ever.

Or they are burial cloths, for someone else.

∞∞∞ wrote:I don't see how it matters if these are authentic. Most people, including academics, argue that Jesus was a real man. So this would only confirm it and the fact that he died (like every other human does). And?