ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 26th June 2013, 10:35 AM   #7961
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I am no longer arguing for a patch -- I'm arguing for reweaving, and I've posted all sorts of links to what I think is "evidence" of, at least some, reweaving.
Jabba,

Allow me to paraphrase part of your argument and please correct me if I am wrong. Your position is that the reason the 14C sample yielded a 13th century date is because part of the 1st century cloth was reweaved with post-13th century threads. If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I have a few questions/comments as follows:

1. It seems to me that the reweaving argument is only necessary if the 14C dating was correct. That is, regardless of where the sample came from or what it was comprised of, the actual process worked correctly to do what it was supposed to do. That is, in very simple terms, the machine made its measurement and spit out its numbers the way it was designed to do; it accurately measured the amount of 14C in whatever sample was placed in the machine. Do you agree?

2. If the sample contained post-13th century threads, there must have been a sufficient amount to alter the date of the remaining 1st century cloth. How much would be required? In my understanding, Hugh and others have shown that even if the post-13th century threads were modern (resulting in the least amount of reweaving) there would still be 80+% of reweaving. Even if these new threads were somehow made entirely of carbon (yielding the absolute minimum amount of reweaving) there would still be 50+% of reweaving. This means that no matter what, the majority of the sample would have to be relatively modern threads. Looking at the photographs, does this appear to be so?

3. Based on the above, the 14C sample would basically be made up of post-13th century threads woven together. I know you are no longer arguing for a patch, but an area whose vast majority is made up of post-13th century threads would by definition be a patch. If the shroud itself were from the 1st century, then this area of post-13th century threads would be substantially different from the rest of the shroud. This is why you believe the 14C date is not indicative of the shroud as a whole, correct? If that is so, is there any evidence that this area is substantially different from the rest of the shroud? There are photographs and UV lighting comparisons that show a banding in the linen that runs uninterrupted through the main body of the shroud and the sample area. How is this possible if there is 50-80+% reweaving in the sample area?
Monza is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 10:37 AM   #7962
FergusM1970
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I don't think that I've read anything from the authenticity side about the banding...
Well, there's a surprise.
FergusM1970 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:31 AM   #7963
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,605
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Note that there were 6 different q/c's in Agatha's 1 posting (to which I responded). If you look back, you'll find that such is pretty typical of the number of q/c's you guys include per post. Many of those are redundant and still left unanswered by me; but then, many of the redundant q/c's had been previously answered by me.
--- Jabba
Given your habit of repetitively posting the same previously debunked crap over and over again it's not surprising there is redundancy.

Oh, and since you failed to answer the questions last time:
  • who carried out your magic "reweaving"?
  • when was it carried out? Remember the carbon dating.
  • who paid for it?
  • who granted access to the shroud?
  • where is the paper trail?
  • why has your magic technique not been used elsewhere?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:49 AM   #7964
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Our objections tend to focus on a narrow number of issues. If you would address those issues, rather than individual questions, you would be able to address multiple questions in one shot.
Dinwar,
- unfortunately, I still don't understand. I think that I do focus on narrow issues -- most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
For example, you can discuss the provenance of Rogers' threads, or the reason why we should give a rat's backside about the vaniline experiment.
- I don't think that I've ever said anything about the vanilin issue. There seem to be two sides to this story, but I don't know enough about either to comment...


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You could also attempt to find specific instances of fraud to support your earlier assertion that all of us scientists are a bunch of dishonest, biased morons...
- But Dinwar, I have never intended to assert such a thing. Can you find a specific instance of such an assertion by me? If I have asserted such a thing, I certainly apologize.
- What I remember asserting is that scientists are only human, and subject to the same sub-conscious biases as anyone else. What do you say about the STURP scientists?
- The scientific method is designed to lessen the impact of our natural emotionality and biases, but it isn't nearly perfect. Gove, for instance has something nasty to say about somebody on almost every page of his book (maybe an overstatement, but not by very much).


Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...(or, which would be even better, you could apologize for the slander).
- I certainly don't think that I slandered anyone. can you give me a specific example?

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:55 AM   #7965
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- We can't know that Rogers was telling the truth about Gonella's claim re the origin of the threads, nor that Gonella was telling the truth in the first place. From all the stuff I've read so far (and can remember), however, my best guess (by far) is that neither was lying...
...and yet, Mr. Savage, you are perfectly comfortable with a scenario in which multiple personnel from three labs, multiple textile authorities, and at least one representative of the church must be lying, or incompetent, or in collusion...which is more likely?

Rogers' "samples" are disarticulated threads, with no provenance. Gonella had neither leave, sanction, nor independent authority to take threads out of the samples sent to the labs; worse,he was never observed to do so. There is no evidence, none, that the samples Gonella is said to have given Rogers have any connection with the medieval linen at all. If Rogers' report of Gonella's unsupported word is trustworthy to you, why is the supported, evidenced, and witnesses testimony of multiple textile authorities and three independent labs not even more so?

I know the answer, and it does you no credit. You are willing to accuse the labs, the authorities, and even the church with dishonesty, incompetence, and fraud, not because you have any evidence of any wrongdoing, but because three independent labs all came up with the "wrong" date. The reality is that the linen artifact first surfaced in the middle ages; was declared a fraud by the church in the middle ages; demonstrates a representative pictorial style common in the middle ages; and was, oddly enough dated as a medieval artifact by three independent laboratories. Your perfervid desire that the cloth be the True ShroudTM is a fairly frail reed to raise up in opposition.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Otherwise, with my meager knowledge of such things, I don't understand why the separation of warp and weft threads would preclude evidence of reweaving. Couldn't one find evidence for reweaving within a single warp, or weft, thread?
--- jabba
"Reweaving" is the process of closing a gap, or repairing a hole, in a woven fabric. The typical procedure takes threads from a hidden portion of the garment, and, with a needle, beginning just past the edge of the damage, picks up the over-under pattern of the rest of the weave to the other side of the damaged area. Even the "French Reweave" (popularly called "invisible reweaving") is visible from the wrong side of the fabric, as there is inevitable a region where the thread count is doubled as the repair threads overlap the standing threads. In some animal fibers, it is possible to re-spin fibers of the repair threads into the standing threads; the oils in wool, for instance, make it possible for the threads to adhere to each other. Even there, at close examination, the splice is as perceptible as a running splice in a halyard. However, such cannot be done with plant fibers, which can only be interwoven at the edges of the repair.

Given a disarticulated thread made of plant fiber, it is not possible to say that the thread was part of a bit of reweaving--in the same way that it is not possible to point to a disarticulated brick and say that it was part of a suburban toolshed.

The photos you continue not to look at do not show an interweaving admixture of 80% repair threads. No person who has actually examined the linen in person has seen, or even claimed to see, reweaving anywhere, much less in the area from which the samples were taken.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:59 AM   #7966
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- Somewhere back in time, I provided 8 articles that I thought showed evidence of reweaving. Are you saying that they didn't show evidence of reweaving?
--- Jabba
Mr. Savage:

I encourage you to provide any pictures you have that you claim show the presence of "invisible reweaving" in the medieval linen artifact.

If all you have is written articles, I encourage you to post links to them again.

Did you look at the picture at the links I posted? Did you look at the images in the Freer-Waters/Jull paper, a copy of which I sent you?

Show me the "invisible reweaving" in them...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 01:22 PM   #7967
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
- unfortunately, I still don't understand.
I find that completely disengenuous. You are complaining that we are asking too many questions. I'm saying that instead of looking at each question individually, you should look for common themes which will allow you to answer multiple questions at once.

Quote:
most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...
Yeah, see, we did that calculation for you several months ago. If you can't figure it out after we've given you the answer, that's just sad.

Quote:
I don't think that I've ever said anything about the vanilin issue.
You're either lying or forgetting several weeks' worth of discussion.

Quote:
- But Dinwar, I have never intended to assert such a thing.
Yes, you did. You most certainly did. I'm not going to wade through your posts looking for the specifics--I've already called you out on them multiple times. It didn't do any good then, and I'm not going to waste my time pretending it will do any good now.

Quote:
- What I remember asserting is that scientists are only human, and subject to the same sub-conscious biases as anyone else.
Right--and then refused to address any of the controls that were put in place, all the while claiming that you were somehow immune to these biases.

Quote:
- The scientific method is designed to lessen the impact of our natural emotionality and biases, but it isn't nearly perfect.
More cowardly generalization. Why don't you actually address any specifics? What SPECIFIC errors were made? SPECIFICALLY how did these biases enter into the tests? How SPECIFICALLY did the SPECIFIC controls in place fail? Until you can answer these you're doing the Eric Cartman "I'm just asking questions" song and dance in an attempt to smear the scientists so that you can dismiss their work without actually bothering to address it.

Put up or shut up. And by "put up" I mean specifics.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 01:51 PM   #7968
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dinwar,
- unfortunately, I still don't understand. I think that I do focus on narrow issues -- most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...
--- Jabba
Jabba, stop playing word games and pay attention. The problem is not that you don't focus on narrow issues in general, it's that there are particular narrow issues that you refuse to address.

Such as the validity of the C14 dating, with specifics, not speculation.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dinwar,
- But Dinwar, I have never intended to assert such a thing. Can you find a specific instance of such an assertion by me? If I have asserted such a thing, I certainly apologize.
- What I remember asserting is that scientists are only human, and subject to the same sub-conscious biases as anyone else. What do you say about the STURP scientists?
- The scientific method is designed to lessen the impact of our natural emotionality and biases, but it isn't nearly perfect. Gove, for instance has something nasty to say about somebody on almost every page of his book (maybe an overstatement, but not by very much).


- I certainly don't think that I slandered anyone. can you give me a specific example?
--- Jabba
Jabba, you slander someone when you question their honesty and competence without evidence.

You are not only asserting that the scientists performing the C14 tests were "only human" and subject to bias.

You have stated that because of their biases, they came to a false conclusion in performing a test. Doing these tests accurately and competently and reporting the results truthfully is their job, Jabba, and you are saying that they failed to do it.

This is like speculating that a doctor harmed a patient due to incompetence, and that you since you never said the word malpractice you were "just saying".
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 04:54 PM   #7969
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- unfortunately, I still don't understand. I think that I do focus on narrow issues -- most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...
I don't think narrowly focusing on something that was figured out months ago is going to help the conversation move forward any. Perhaps you should consider re-reading the thread to find all the information you've missed? We'll be happy to wait while you do that.

Quote:
- But Dinwar, I have never intended to assert such a thing. Can you find a specific instance of such an assertion by me? If I have asserted such a thing, I certainly apologize.
You've never outright accused anyone of fraud or incompetence. What you have done is suggest scenarios that require them to either be frauds or incompetent. For example:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But as you say, the labs probably knew well in advance the general area from where the sample would be taken. But then, it seems to me that doing carbon dating on the shroud would have been so important to them that ultimately, they would take whatever they could get and not complain about it.
Here you are suggesting that if the labs knew there was a problem with the sample, they would have done the testing anyway without giving any indication that the test result was not the actual date of the Shroud. So you haven't said "they're frauds", but you've described a scenario that requires fraud.

It's kinda like if I don't say you're a thief, but I do say you snuck some stuff out of a store without paying for it.

Quote:
What I remember asserting is that scientists are only human, and subject to the same sub-conscious biases as anyone else.
You say this a lot, but you've yet to actually demonstrate that such biases impacted their work in any way. Claiming that it did isn't relevant for the same reason my claiming that you're a squirrel doesn't suddenly give you a fluffy tail.

Quote:
- I certainly don't think that I slandered anyone. can you give me a specific example?
Just about every suggestion you make to suggest how the scientists could have gotten the wrong date involves slandering the scientists.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 06:31 PM   #7970
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[...]
- I am no longer arguing for a patch -- I'm arguing for reweaving, and I've posted all sorts of links to what I think is "evidence" of, at least some, reweaving. Do you think that those links do not provide any evidence of reweaving?
It's a distinction that makes no difference. It's a pathetic argument and the 'evidence' you have provided is equally pitiful.

Jabba, if you will reconsider your unwarranted slander against scientists involved in the 14C dating of the shroud, then I'll revisit your worthless arguments in favor of a 1st Century origin.

Not that it will matter one bit. A 1st century origin doesn't mean it's the shroud of Christ.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 03:57 AM   #7971
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
CarbonDating/Reweaving/PercentNew/PastTheExperts

Me:
most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...Yeah, see, we did that calculation for you several months ago. If you can't figure it out after we've given you the answer, that's just sad...
Dinwar,
- I misstated. I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts. I had pretty much accepted what you guys had said about the necessary percentage. Benford did claim that the necessary amount of newer material required to explain a 1300 year error was only 40 to 60 percent of the sample -- but even if she was right, that would seem like a whole lot to get past the experts...
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 04:11 AM   #7972
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Me:
most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...


Dinwar,
- I misstated. I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts. I had pretty much accepted what you guys had said about the necessary percentage. Benford did claim that the necessary amount of newer material required to explain a 1300 year error was only 40 to 60 percent of the sample -- but even if she was right, that would seem like a whole lot to get past the experts...
--- Jabba
Mr. Savage:

Benford's "claim" is incorrect, as has been demonstrated to you.

Please re-post the links to provide any pictures or articles you have that you "claim" show the presence of "invisible reweaving" in the medieval linen artifact.

Did you look at the picture at the links I posted? Did you look at the images in the Freer-Waters/Jull paper, a copy of which I sent you?

Show me the "invisible reweaving" in them...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 04:42 AM   #7973
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I misstated. I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts.
Unless it actually did, it's a waste of time to try to calculate how it hypothetically could have. And based on all the available evidence, it didn't.

But here, I'll offer you the only possible ways I can think of for such contamination to get past the scientists: fraud or incompetence. That's it. Those are the only options.
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 05:05 AM   #7974
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
I'm sorry, but what part of that post do you imagine backs up your claim that Jabba says that he has been researching the shroud for 20 years?
wollery-
I came to my own conclusions on this particular subject by reading all that was posted up by Jabba at the atheist forum, and many hours it took me to do that.
I posted up just one of many posts that were indicative of Jabba's long standing interest in the subject.
Is long-standing interest the same as research?

Obviously not and not, in the long run particularly interesting, except to understand the thinking of a believer. I took advantage of the thread to explore that thinking, yes.

I have the impression the rest of the posting on the subject was a case of Chinese Whispers.

In any case, this thread is about the TS, not a fellow forum poster.
So I was grossly at fault in even mentioning Jabba's long-standing interest in the TS here.
Back to your original programming.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 05:30 AM   #7975
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dinwar,
- unfortunately, I still don't understand. I think that I do focus on narrow issues -- most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Me:
most recently Ive been trying to focus on the percent of reweaving necessary to explain a 1300 year error...


Dinwar,
- I misstated. I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts. I had pretty much accepted what you guys had said about the necessary percentage. Benford did claim that the necessary amount of newer material required to explain a 1300 year error was only 40 to 60 percent of the sample -- but even if she was right, that would seem like a whole lot to get past the experts...
Jabba, do you understand just what you are saying with this:
"I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts."

Perhaps you should contact Prof. Christopher Ramsey with your concerns.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 05:39 AM   #7976
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,471
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts.
Have you considered that the answer might be "it couldn't"?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 05:52 AM   #7977
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Jabba,

I realize it must seem like simple piling on to chime in with agreement regarding criticism of your latest post, but I have an unevidenced hope that perhaps this post this one time will cut through the underbrush of logic-deficient belief.

Imagine yourself for a moment not as an advocate for either side. Forget that you want the shroud to be authentic. Pretend that you have just now come into this thread and had the cases summarized for you. Now allow me to present that summary. Read it, and tell yourself honestly how you as a temporarily neutral and objective third party would evaluate it:

Case for medieval forgery
1.All the stuff not related to the C14 dating, which are by themselves sufficient to deem it likely a forgery but which we can forget for now

2. C14 dating


Case for 1st century dating (NOT for authenticity; that's another matter)
"I should have said that I've been trying to focus on how a percent so large could get past all those experts."


That's it. That's what you, as a neutral and objective third party see.

Scientific test on the one hand, and vague ideas of how the test might possibly be wrong though we have no idea how on the other hand.

You need to answer this, Jabba. It is okay to be biased. It's expected, even. It is not okay to ignore that bias when claiming to be looking for truth or when determining the state of objective fact.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 06:04 AM   #7978
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
To help move the discussion on, I believe I have found a bit of interweaving on the Arizona Shroud sample. There are, I believe, three photographs of the same bit of cloth, which can all be identified by a tiny twist of some blue material in the top right hand corner.
Photo 1: in the Jull/Freer-Waters paper, hugely magnified. This only shows a few threads, and I am only using it as a link. The wiggly blue thing is very obvious.
Photo 2: in http://shroudstory.com/2011/01/05/wa...roud-of-turin/. This is a rather poor newspaper photo (I don't know where from) showing a much bigger area of cloth. Nevertheless, the wiggly blue thing is still clearly visible.
Photo 3: at http://shroud.com/pdfs/arizona.pdf, Figure 2, top picture. This shows the same area, now much trimmed at the bottom, presumably for Freer-Waters's fibre examinations but the wiggly blue thing is still there in the top right hand corner.
Calling the thread with the blue thing 1, and counting to the left, thread number 19 has a smaller, darker thread alongside it over a small part of its upper length.

I do not claim that this is part of an invisible mend, or, indeed that was a deliberate insertion at all. It may be entirely fortuitous, or the beginning of another thread as one was coming to its end, or any of a number of possible things, but I believe it is the sort of thing one might search for if one wanted evidence of some kind of irregularity in the weave of the shroud.
hugh farey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 06:14 AM   #7979
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Jabba, if you are only going to address Hughfarey's points and nobody else's, perhaps you could take it to PM with him. I fear the mods may take a dim view if the thread devolves into a private conversation between the two of you.

If, however you would condescend to also reply to others on the thread, then perhaps this trainwreck of a thread will be permitted to continue.

You have yet to post any evidence of a patch, invisible or otherwise, in this obscure corner of the shroud. Other people have posted a great deal of evidence against there being a patch there, or indeed anywhere other than the obvious patches. Reweaving is a non-starter, as it uses threads from the original cloth (something you conceded many months ago, but from which you have now resiled for some reason). Nor have you acknowledged the calculations done which show how much patching material there would have to be to turn your preferred/desired date of 1st century into the actual determined date of 14th century.

You are correct in stating that you have many unanswered questions and observations to which to reply. Perhaps you could actually reply to some instead of wasting posts on excuses for why you have not yet done so; posting to say that you cannot post is not really an example of honest discussion.
Agatha,
- The following is not meant as a complaint -- I'm just reporting back.
- I Just tried to do what you, and others have, suggested -- it seemed worth another try. That effort led to a host of q/c's. So...
- For the time being, I will try to work on 2 subjects:1) such a repair getting past the experts, and 2) a list of separate (different) issues raised since I began trying to follow your suggestion.
- Wish me luck.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 06:46 AM   #7980
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,625
Good luck.

Please make sure that one of your possible answers to
Q. how could such a big reweave/repair escape the notice of all of the experts

is

A. it couldn't, because it was never there in the first place

In science, you must start from the null hypothesis, even if you don't want it to be true.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 08:20 AM   #7981
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Mr. Savage:

...

Did you look at the pictures?
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/arizona.pdf.

Are you seriously claiming that no less than 67% of the material in the sample photographed is not original material?

....
I think it would be useful to post some of the actual images for reference. These are both sides of "shroud" and 2nd century "mummy". I can post the 12th century samples if needed.


Shroud 1


Shroud 2


Mummy 1


Mummy 2
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 08:41 AM   #7982
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
CarbonDating/Reweaving/PercentNew/PastTheExperts?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,
- The following is not meant as a complaint -- I'm just reporting back.
- I Just tried to do what you, and others have, suggested -- it seemed worth another try. That effort led to a host of q/c's. So...
- For the time being, I will try to work on 2 subjects:1) such a repair getting past the experts, and 2) a list of separate (different) issues raised since I began trying to follow your suggestion.
- Wish me luck.
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Good luck.

Please make sure that one of your possible answers to
Q. how could such a big reweave/repair escape the notice of all of the experts

is

A. it couldn't, because it was never there in the first place

In science, you must start from the null hypothesis, even if you don't want it to be true.
Agatha,

- I'll be trying to avoid that answer, but at this point at least, it is clearly a reasonable -- if not strong -- possibility, and I'll do my best to keep an open mind to it.

- As to my list of q/c's, I'll make the banding question the first on my list.

--- jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 08:47 AM   #7983
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,

- I'll be trying to avoid that answer, but at this point at least, it is clearly a reasonable -- if not strong -- possibility, and I'll do my best to keep an open mind to it.

- As to my list of q/c's, I'll make the banding question the first on my list.

--- jabba
And that is the entirety* of your problem. You are not looking for the truth; you are looking for a way to rhetorically label your preference as truth.


*Well, not the "entirety," but the leading one.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 27th June 2013 at 08:48 AM.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 09:12 AM   #7984
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
CarbonDating/Reweaving/PercentNew/PastTheExperts?

Olokow,
- Thanks. That got my attention.

Slowvehicle,
- I don't see any repair even at that magnification. I'll ask Barrie about it the next time we talk.

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 09:27 AM   #7985
Akri
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'll be trying to avoid that answer, but at this point at least, it is clearly a reasonable -- if not strong -- possibility, and I'll do my best to keep an open mind to it.
And why isn't it a strong possibility? There's no evidence of contamination getting past the scientists, nor is there evidence of them being frauds or incompetent (the only possibilities that would allow such contamination to get past them).

Other than you not liking it, what reason is there to think it's not a strong possibility?
Akri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 12:07 PM   #7986
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
CarbonDating/Reweave/%needed/GettingPastExperts?

Originally Posted by Akri View Post
And why isn't it a strong possibility? There's no evidence of contamination getting past the scientists, nor is there evidence of them being frauds or incompetent (the only possibilities that would allow such contamination to get past them).

Other than you not liking it, what reason is there to think it's not a strong possibility?
Akri,
- I am thinking that it's a strong possibility. I guess the wording I used can be misleading.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 12:55 PM   #7987
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Akri,
- I am thinking that it's a strong possibility. I guess the wording I used can be misleading.
--- Jabba
Misleading is one word for it. I can think of others.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 02:39 PM   #7988
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Olokow,
- Thanks. That got my attention.

Slowvehicle,
- I don't see any repair even at that magnification. I'll ask Barrie about it the next time we talk.

--- Jabba
Mr. Savage:

Do you think that Barrie is going to tell you that the rest of the samples, the parts that were reduced to carbon for testing, really were 70-90% foreign material, but by luck, or incompetence, or collusion, or whatever, not only are the samples not representative of the whole medieval artifact, the remainder of the samples is not representative of the samples?

Here is clear visual evidence that ("blue threads" notwithstanding) the samples are homogeneous. What else would it take for you to admit that your "some patching" idea is a non-starter, unsupported by any evidence?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 03:37 PM   #7989
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Mr. Savage:

Do you think that Barrie is going to tell you that the rest of the samples, the parts that were reduced to carbon for testing, really were 70-90% foreign material, but by luck, or incompetence, or collusion, or whatever, not only are the samples not representative of the whole medieval artifact, the remainder of the samples is not representative of the samples?

Here is clear visual evidence that ("blue threads" notwithstanding) the samples are homogeneous. What else would it take for you to admit that your "some patching" idea is a non-starter, unsupported by any evidence?
Ooh! Ooh! *waves hand wildly* I know the answer!
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 06:20 PM   #7990
FergusM1970
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
the possibility that the sample selected is not representative of the shroud in general/ the amount of newer material it would take to cause a 1300 year difference between it and the greater shroud/ and the possibility that the involved experts would miss such a variance.
Negligible, about 65% and none. Except that's not what you want to hear, so you'll simply ignore it and keep going over the same ground again.
FergusM1970 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 07:03 PM   #7991
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Jabba,

There is no evidence that such an invisible weave exists. I started to reply at length, but it occurred to me to simply advise you to stop this invisible weave *****. It's gotten you nowhere.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 05:27 AM   #7992
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
CarbonDating/Reweave/%needed/GettingPastExperts?

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Mr. Savage:

Do you think that Barrie is going to tell you that the rest of the samples, the parts that were reduced to carbon for testing, really were 70-90% foreign material, but by luck, or incompetence, or collusion, or whatever, not only are the samples not representative of the whole medieval artifact, the remainder of the samples is not representative of the samples?...
Slowvehicle,

- I know that Barrie still considers Benford's 40-60% requirement a possibility... I need to go back and see how she came up with that figure.
- Otherwise, as I understand what he's saying, he basically agrees with my "best chance" answer -- i.e., 1) there is a method of reweaving that could get past every test that we know the experts performed, and 2) no one was looking for that sort of thing -- they were basically looking for "patches," rather than "patching" (reweaving), FL would have dismissed any frontal suggestions of patching based upon the fact that there were no obvious indications of patching on the back, and she probably would have encouraged the others to do the same.

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 28th June 2013 at 05:29 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 05:42 AM   #7993
Filippo Lippi
Illuminator
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,151
evasion noted
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:06 AM   #7994
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,

- I know that Barrie still considers Benford's 40-60% requirement a possibility... I need to go back and see how she came up with that figure.
- Otherwise, as I understand what he's saying, he basically agrees with my "best chance" answer -- i.e., 1) there is a method of reweaving that could get past every test that we know the experts performed, and 2) no one was looking for that sort of thing -- they were basically looking for "patches," rather than "patching" (reweaving), FL would have dismissed any frontal suggestions of patching based upon the fact that there were no obvious indications of patching on the back, and she probably would have encouraged the others to do the same.

--- Jabba
Mr. Savage:

The only reason you want there to be a "method of reweaving" that would escape detection by visual and tactile examination, and by photography under various light sources; a "method" that would leave undisturbed structural characteristics of the linen, is because you are more confident declaring that Dr. Fkeury-Lemberg, Dr. Jull, Dr. Freer-Waters, three independent labs, and every other person who has been allowed actual access to the strip of medieval linen under observed and controlled conditions; not only may be, but are and must be, either incompetent, foolish, dishonest, or in collusion with some sort of vast conspiracy to hide the TruthTM about the True ShroudTM.

Look at the pictures again. You are, in essence, staking your hope of glory on the claim that, at a minimum, 6 threads out of 10 (or worse, 6 fibers out of 10) are of material that was not originally part of the cloth; material that so cunningly matches the original material that no actual examination has yet been able to detect its addition.

Worse, those 6/10 treads or fibers were added to the cloth with unknown, unrepeatable, and undetectable technology, to a part of the cloth where such repair makes no structural or artistic sense; added at a time unknown by parties unknown without any record of the repair or replacement being done.

Worse, the existence and nature of the repair or replacement was missed by quantitative analyses and detailed in situ examination, but was discovered by a dubious qualitative chemical test performed on disassociated fibers of unsupported provenance.

Do you understand what "special pleading" is? Your pervasive libel of professionals; your dark, veiled accusations; your insistence upon undemonstrated and undetectable technologies are not based upon facts, or evidence, or even reality. Your persistence is fueled only by your desire, your hope, your need, that the medieval artifact really be the True ShroudTM .

What is truly sad is that you seem to think that if you can just libel away the 14C dates, the cloth must be AuthenticTM, when, in reality, the 14C is only the first of your hurdles. Have you performed the Shroud SlouchTM test yet?

ETA:
Your contention that Dr. Fleury-Lembert would not have looked at evidence of "patching" (BTW, I thought you were championing "invisible reweaving" now, having given up on the impossibility of "some patching") on the front of the cloth because she did not see evidence of "some patching" on the back of the cloth is libelous calumny. I am of the opinion that you owe Dr. Fleury-Lembert an apology.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 28th June 2013 at 06:37 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:12 AM   #7995
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,625
Come now, Jabba, that's utter nonsense and relies once again on incompetence or fraud over a substantial period of time on the part of many people both textile experts and members of the Church. I don't know if you've ever heard the maxim that "three people can keep a secret only if two of them are dead" but it is applicable here; there is no possible way that a reweave or patch would have gone unnoticed, and if it was deliberately ignored or kept secret we would know it by now.

There is no known method of reweaving that is truly invisible from both sides, and you can see from the pictures above of the complex twill weave that there is no reweaving with different thread. It is evenly woven and the weave pattern is very different from the way weaves were done in the 1st century.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:14 AM   #7996
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,

- I know that Barrie still considers Benford's 40-60% requirement a possibility... I need to go back and see how she came up with that figure.
- Otherwise, as I understand what he's saying, he basically agrees with my "best chance" answer -- i.e., 1) there is a method of reweaving that could get past every test that we know the experts performed, and 2) no one was looking for that sort of thing -- they were basically looking for "patches," rather than "patching" (reweaving), FL would have dismissed any frontal suggestions of patching based upon the fact that there were no obvious indications of patching on the back, and she probably would have encouraged the others to do the same.

--- Jabba
Does it not worry you that your "best chance" answer has worse odds than winning the lottery. Twice. In consecutive weeks?
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 07:29 AM   #7997
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
1) there is a method of reweaving that could get past every test that we know the experts performed,
One that no one has demonstrated, which textile experts have said is impossible, and for which no evidence has been presented.

Quote:
2) no one was looking for that sort of thing
Despite the fact that we've demonstrated they were, and that experts in reweaving have stated that there is no known reweaving technique that will yeild a patch that can't be detected via careful examination.

You are relying on us forgetting the past arguments once again, Jabba.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 09:12 AM   #7998
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
One that no one has demonstrated, which textile experts have said is impossible, and for which no evidence has been presented.
This. A thousand times this.


The labs were wrong because there might maybe possibly have been some sort of type of kinda like thing that has never been done before, cannot conceivably be done, and was undetected by the experts who examined it close up but was detected by non-experts in photographs.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 11:39 AM   #7999
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
carbonDating/Reweave/%needed/GettingPastExperts?

- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 28th June 2013 at 11:41 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 12:14 PM   #8000
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You guys keep saying that these experts would have found the repair if it were there. I need you to point out specifically what they did that would have revealed the repairing. I'll see what Barrie says about it.
--- Jabba
I find it hillarious that you expect to get away with "There might be something that no one can detect" as if that's a legitimate argument, but feel comfortable demanding we provide details for our arguments.

Learn what re-weaving is. That will show you what the experts would have found. If you can't be bothered to do this, drop the reweaving argument.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.