Quote:
A real scientist would say something like "based on the data I have now, I can't explain ....." - Which is an entirely different statement. Hans |
Science can't explain
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start. - http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm - http://shroud.com/78team.htm |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
From the second link: (Deleted: Those who did not take part in the investigation.) Quote:
Ah, well ...... Hans |
Quote:
It really is helpful if you would summarize in your own words what your argument is. Please do not just post links without any sort of comment from you. In the past you have shown an inability to be aware of what you link to. Sometimes, your linked articles have stated something opposite of what you had intended. It is OK to post links to your sources; in fact, it is much preferred. But this should be used to support what you have to say, not be a substitute for it. Here is what Agatha has asked: 1. Please name some of these scientists. 2. Note their area of expertise. 3. Explain what aspect of the shroud they confess to finding inexplicable. |
Monza,
- Are you sure that this is what you want me to address? - I'll be back. |
Quote:
Are these more links you have not read, or having read them, do not understand? What About the Iron (III) Oxide? |
Science can't explain
Quote:
- Note that my original, and specific, claim is that most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it. As far as I know, the only scientist who actually studied the shroud and claimed that he could explain it was Walter McCrone. |
Quote:
How many of the "scientists" you list, who have "studied" the CIQ, have actually examined the artifact itself? The "lack of understanding" of which you speak appears to be an artifact of self-selection. Did you read the link I posted for you, last night? |
Quote:
- The second link addresses the first two requests. - The first link "touches upon" the third request. - Seems to me that they provide good places to start. - I'll be back. |
Quote:
Yes, and that was the claim that Agatha asked you to support: Quote:
Please do so rather than trying to evade the issue. |
Quote:
Also, many scientists are aware of the medieval dating, and thus the Jesus explanation is right out. |
Quote:
Well, start there, then, and say how they support your claim. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We're on the fourth generation thread of this fiasco now Jabba, and you have no evidence of authenticity that stands up to the sniff test. It's been a long time since you did anything but a fringe reset or promise to be back. |
Dear Mr. Savage:
I, for one, would appreciate it if you would address the fact that you appear to be basing at least some of your argument on Shroedinger's Rust. Which of your arguments (the one that is based upon the presence of Fe2O3, or the one that is based upon the absence of Fe2O3) represents reality? |
Quote:
Again, here is what Agatha asked you to address. 1. Please name some of these scientists. 2. Note their area of expertise. 3. Explain what aspect of the shroud they confess to finding inexplicable. OK, let's just start with the first name on your second link. Quote:
I read through your first link, but it does not mention Mr. Accetta at all. Since your information doesn't tell me what his area of expertise is, I can't tell what in the STURP final report he may have contributed to. I certainly can't tell what Mr. Accetta contributed to the research or what he feels he cannot explain based on his particular area of study. There are 32 other names that all have the same lack of information from you. This is why I asked you to reply to Agatha in your own words. You don't seem to have read the information you link to in order to tell if it actually responds to the question at hand. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* I can't find him on the internet to assess his area of expertise. John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* Can't find him either, though to be fair his surname may make it difficult. Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography* He appears to be a photographer, but not a scientist. Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography* There are too many famous people called Mark Evans for me to be able to find him on the net. Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography* Another photographer, appearing to specialise in nudes. Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.* His expertise was in computer image analysis, but though he studied physics he does not appear to have a PhD Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado* Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM* Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation* Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation* Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph* John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy* Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy* Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories* Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center* Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios* I had expected that you would have listed their areas of expertise, Jabba, as I'd particularly asked you to do this. So I went through the first seven names (as it was Jabba's job to do this, I stopped after seven) on the list of 'scientists' who took part in the investigation in 1978, and so far it seems that 'scientist' is being used in a very loose sense; only one of the first seven has a PhD that I can find, and in any case none of their areas of expertise appear to relate to textiles, art history, archaeology, chemistry, biology or forensics. It is not even clear from this list how many of these people actually observed or handled the shroud itself (rather than photographs of it). The investigation that these people did took place before the carbon dating analysis; it may be that if those results had been known, the results of their investigation may have been rather different. I don't think you have evidenced your assertion that "most" scientists who have studied the shroud 'admit they cannot explain it'. In 1978, a number of people, at least one of whom can properly be described as a scientist (but including many who were not scientists) performed an investigation. Their conclusion was that some aspects could not currently be explained, but that they suspected explanations would be made in the future. That was 37 years ago. I do not know, of course, how many scientists were part of that group, since you did not provide that information. Nor how many scientists have been involved in investigations before or since, including the carbon dating work. But I don't think you have met your burden of proof of showing that "most" (51%+) scientists who have studied the shroud have admitted it cannot be explained. Nor does any of this really touch on authenticity (see the many analogies already made to demonstrate that irreproducibility and inexplicability do not support or imply authenticity). |
I looked up the two faculty from the Air Force Academy. Both are engineers.
|
Quote:
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough... - I'll see what I can find out. |
How unusual for you to throw out some links to stuff you haven't read.
|
Yes, but how many of this list are called Steve?
|
Quote:
Shouldn't you have done this already? Didn't you check who these people were and what they claimed before? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Wait, multiple threads and jabba is on "Well if X scientist(s) can't explain it, it must be true!"...wow
|
Quote:
Show me on the request where the scientist touched it... Sheesh. Much bloviate. Many evade. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did STURP have any, Jabba? Let me guess - You'll be back. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Jabba, why are you studiously avoiding Slowvehicle?
|
Quote:
Of course, that Slowvehicle uses common sense, logic, facts, evidence, etc, etc, [with almost superhuman politeness!] that Jabba can't possibly address has nothing at all to do with it. But you knew that already, of course... :) |
Quote:
|
And as it had been said a zillion times before:
If the Vatican truly believed in the authenticity of The Fake of Turin, they would make it a publicity stunt. Independent scientists, lots of accredited laboratories, invite the press, serve canapes. Then publish the results, showing that The Rag was very close to 1980 years old! It would be a huge victory for the RCC (Even though the result really only would show that it was ~2000 years old, and say nothing about the rest of the story). And all the skeptics would look like losers, because "THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT"! Hordes of (God loves you, and he always needs more money) But they don't! Because the RCC knows full well what the story of the cloth is, and they are fully aware, that more testing would only show, that the miraculously wedge shaped head of jesus never touched it, because the age support the "Medieval fabricated relic"-theory completely. As it is now, they sit on their hands, cash in the money and have no intentions to change that. |
In JabbaWorld the RCC are part of the conspiracy
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.