International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299015)

MRC_Hans 7th October 2015 07:21 AM

Mod Info The previous thread was getting long and suffering from loading issues, so a new continuation has been opened. The split point was arbitrary and you may quote from or link to the posts in any of the previous threads into this one. For reference, the first thread is HERE, the second HERE, and the third HERE.
Posted By:Agatha







Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10913778)
- Most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it.

Actually, if they say it can't be explained, they are not real scientists.

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

Jabba 7th October 2015 08:09 AM

Science can't explain
 
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

The Don 7th October 2015 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915691)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

Those aren't proper scientists, they're STURP who have a vested interest in the shroud being considered authentic.

MRC_Hans 7th October 2015 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915691)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

From the first link:
Quote:

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
The highlighted part. They do not say that it cannot be answered. Only that they don't currently have an answer.

From the second link:
(Deleted: Those who did not take part in the investigation.)
Quote:

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
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*
No medical experts? No forensic experts? No biologists? No chemical specialists? No archaeological experts?

Ah, well ......

Hans

Monza 7th October 2015 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915691)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

Jabba,

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.

Argumemnon 7th October 2015 08:34 AM

Monza,
- Are you sure that this is what you want me to address?
- I'll be back.

Slowvehicle 7th October 2015 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915691)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

Dear Mr. Savage:

Are these more links you have not read, or having read them, do not understand? What About the Iron (III) Oxide?

Jabba 7th October 2015 08:56 AM

Science can't explain
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10913778)
Agatha,
- If you pose more than one Q/C (question/comment) in your post, be sure to pose the one you most wish me to deal with, first.
- Most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it.]

Agatha,,
- 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.

Slowvehicle 7th October 2015 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915804)
Agatha,,
- 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.

In addition to your contemptuous continued dismissal of Mme F-L, the "scientists" you offer cannot even agree on whether there is, or is not, Iron (III) oxide upon the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval linen...

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?

Jabba 7th October 2015 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monza (Post 10915744)
Jabba,

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,
- 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.

Mojo 7th October 2015 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915804)
Agatha,,
- Note that my original, and specific, claim is that most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it.


Yes, and that was the claim that Agatha asked you to support:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agatha (Post 10913984)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba
Originally Posted by Jabba
- Most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it.

Could you please support this assertion with evidence? Please name some of these scientists, note their area of expertise and explain what aspect of the shroud they confess to finding inexplicable.


Please do so rather than trying to evade the issue.

Resume 7th October 2015 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915804)
Agatha,,
- 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.

Unexplained does not mean unexplainable. Many scientists couldn't explain spoonbending until a certain someone came along.

Also, many scientists are aware of the medieval dating, and thus the Jesus explanation is right out.

Mojo 7th October 2015 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915827)
Monza,
- 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.


Well, start there, then, and say how they support your claim.

John Jones 7th October 2015 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10915804)
Agatha,,
- 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.

None of that counts toward authenticity.

John Jones 7th October 2015 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916057)
Agatha,,
- 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.

You forgot the scientists who did the 14C dating. They could explain it too: It was a 14th century fabrication.

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.

Slowvehicle 7th October 2015 11:05 AM

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?

Monza 7th October 2015 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916059)
Monza,
- 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.


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:

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation
Well, that does take care of item 1. We have a name. I guess we'll assume he is a scientist. But what about item 2? What is his area of expertise?

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.

Craig4 7th October 2015 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916051)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

You know, there are a whole lot of people from the labs that did the carbon dating who may not know how the image got on the cloth, but they sure know how old the cloth is.

Argumemnon 7th October 2015 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916057)
Agatha,,
- 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.

Seriously, who gives a ****? This has nothing to do with your claim that it's authentic.

Agatha 7th October 2015 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916051)
Agatha,
- These are probably the best places to start.
- http://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- http://shroud.com/78team.htm

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation* His expertise is in optical sensors. But he does have a PhD.
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).

Craig4 7th October 2015 12:42 PM

I looked up the two faculty from the Air Force Academy. Both are engineers.

Jabba 7th October 2015 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agatha (Post 10916212)
Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation* His expertise is in optical sensors. But he does have a PhD.
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.

Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

Filippo Lippi 7th October 2015 01:57 PM

How unusual for you to throw out some links to stuff you haven't read.

Sideroxylon 7th October 2015 01:58 PM

Yes, but how many of this list are called Steve?

abaddon 7th October 2015 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916431)
Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

Decades of study, and you will see what you can find out?

Shouldn't you have done this already?

Didn't you check who these people were and what they claimed before?

Slowvehicle 7th October 2015 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi (Post 10916443)
How unusual for you to throw out some links to stuff you haven't read.

Inorite?

Slowvehicle 7th October 2015 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 10916449)
Decades of study, and you will see what you can find out?

Shouldn't you have done this already?

Didn't you check who these people were and what they claimed before?

...you must be new to these parts...

Nay_Sayer 7th October 2015 02:12 PM

Wait, multiple threads and jabba is on "Well if X scientist(s) can't explain it, it must be true!"...wow

Kid Eager 7th October 2015 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916059)
Monza,
- 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.

Jabba,
Show me on the request where the scientist touched it...

Sheesh. Much bloviate. Many evade.

Craig4 7th October 2015 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916431)
Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

Not to put too fine a point on things but what the **** have you been doing when you've been studying the Shroud? You know nothing about the scientists who you claim have studied the thing. You have to get back to everyone about everything. You can't handle even the most basic questions. You did not come here ready to have a serious discussion.

Argumemnon 7th October 2015 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916431)
Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

Maybe you should stop trying to find factoids that fit your belief and instead admit that you have nothing.

John Jones 7th October 2015 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 10916053)
From the first link:


The highlighted part. They do not say that it cannot be answered. Only that they don't currently have an answer.

From the second link:
(Deleted: Those who did not take part in the investigation.)


No medical experts? No forensic experts? No biologists? No chemical specialists? No archaeological experts?

Jabba made complaint after complaint about the 14C scientists employed by the Vatican having no archaeologists on hand.

Did STURP have any, Jabba?

Let me guess - You'll be back.

John Jones 7th October 2015 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916431)
Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

This is beyond pathetic. Jabba, listen to your family when they urge you to stay off the internet. Plant a garden or something.

Sideroxylon 7th October 2015 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916431)
Agatha,
- You're right. I didn't think it through enough...
- I'll see what I can find out.

It's clear You haven't thought any of this shroud thing through.

SezMe 7th October 2015 10:40 PM

Jabba, why are you studiously avoiding Slowvehicle?

Rincewind 7th October 2015 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 10917081)
Jabba, why are you studiously avoiding Slowvehicle?

Good question.

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... :)

catsmate 8th October 2015 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba (Post 10916057)
- Note that my original, and specific, claim is that most scientists who have studied the shroud admit that they cannot explain it.

This is as untrue now as it was the last time you asserted it. And as you failed to produce evidence that time I have little expectation that you'll support this claim.

Peter i 8th October 2015 04:27 AM

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 gullible fools devout believers would come to see it, and the money would pour into the RCC.
(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.

Filippo Lippi 8th October 2015 05:16 AM

In JabbaWorld the RCC are part of the conspiracy

Argumemnon 8th October 2015 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi (Post 10917431)
In JabbaWorld the RCC are part of the conspiracy

The Cathar thought so, and look where it got them.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.