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 25th July 2013, 03:59 PM   #8801
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
Hi Jabba!
I've been looking at blood-stains, and blood claims. Most of them are fairly subjective and, as you have suggested, constitute opinions rather than facts. However, there are a few genuine anomalies that deserve serious consideration. ...(respectfully snipped)...There are a few other anomalies, but these might give you something to think about, and maybe inquire among others, for a while.
Thanks for the infors, hugh.


Originally Posted by Tomboy View Post
McCrone identified 2 different pigments on the shroud, though. The red ochre was used for the body part of the image. The parts that look like blood stains were made with vermilion (mercuric sulfide).

Mercuric sulfide is a chemical compound that is never found in blood and yet it's on those parts of ths shroud that are meant to represent blood stains. It's not just any vermilion pigment, though, it's vermilion pigment that was manufactured via a technique that originated in 8th century China and was adopted in Europe by the 12th century, although the expense limited its use until, interestingly enough, the 14th century.


http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ar00171a004 page 79-80.
And Tomboy!
I'll mull it over in the breakfast nook, the only place to be after a curiously unsatisfying day.

Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
-
----I'll be back after chilaquiles in the breakfast nook.
That's supposing carlitos'll relinquish the shisha sometime soon...
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 26th July 2013, 02:51 AM   #8802
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
The vermilion (HgS) question, I submit, is far from established and quite possibly a red herring. McCrone completely failed to identify vermilion in his first careful study of blood slides, and only recognised it visually after his team identified it on a single slide by Electron Dispersive X-Ray Analysis. He was, he says in Judgement Day For The Shroud, embarrassed to have missed it. Heller and Adler also found a single shard of vermilion, which they recognised by sight, and then tested, finding it, again, on a single slide, different from McCrone's but from the same blood flow. Unlike McCrone, who, by the time it was discovered, was no longer in possession of the famous tapes, Heller and Adler tried to identify it on other slides, without success. It cannot be established that it is anything more than a minor contaminant, possibly derived from other paintings laid in close contact with the shroud, possibly, at most, a top-up for the blood. It certainly does not prove, or even provide good evidence, that the blood is not blood.
That is shifting the burden of proof. There is no evidence there was ever blood on the shroud. There is good evidence that pigments were used in the creation of the shroud. But of course all discussion of the formation of the image is irrelevant to the conclusion that it was a Medieval fake.
Acleron 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 July 2013, 03:10 AM   #8803
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Let's look at another anomaly, shall we? I only ask because some of you may be more familiar with reflectance spectra than I, and this anomaly concerns them.
Four spectra:
1) Reflectance spectrum of 63-day old blood, from "Age estimation of blood stains by hemoglobin derivative determination using reflectance spectroscopy," Forensic Science International, Volume 206, Issues 1–3, 20 March 2011, Pages 166–171, by Bremmer et al. The important diagram is at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7907381000383X (Figure D) or can be found just by Googling it.
2) Reflectance spectrum of red ochre from Roussillon (Southern France), from "Relationship between the colour of ochre from Roussillon and the content of iron-bearing minerals," Applied Clay Science, 01/2011; 51:54-60. This is at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0760.pdf, Figure 9.
3) Reflectance spectrum of vermilion, from "Art and Science: Renaissance Illuminations," National Gallery of Art, Washington, at http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/co...ipts.html.html
4) Reflectance spectrum of shroud blood. From "Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, 1980 Jun 15;19(12):1930-6, by Gilbert and Gilbert. The important diagram is reprinted at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf.

As you will see, there is a pronounced bump-and-dip in the shroud spectrum at about 620nm, which is not present in either of the other two. In fact, the diagram shown is an average of the spectra from four bloodstains (not on the internet unfortunately) all of which show the same distinct bump-and-dip. Neither the old blood spectrum, nor the ochre spectrum, nor the vermilion one, matches this pattern. The nearest I can get to it is a methemoglobin spectrum at http://www.google.com/patents/EP2220249B1?cl=en (Figure 4 - an absorption spectrum, and Figure 5 - a reflectance spectrum), but it is not very clear. Can anyone find a better match for 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 26th July 2013, 03:57 AM   #8804
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
That is shifting the burden of proof. There is no evidence there was ever blood on the shroud. There is good evidence that pigments were used in the creation of the shroud. But of course all discussion of the formation of the image is irrelevant to the conclusion that it was a Medieval fake.
The first three sentences are transparently untrue. The fourth I agree with.
1) "Shifting the burden of proof." From whom to whom? There is a red stain on a cloth. I think it contains blood. You think it doesn't. We both need evidence to support our claim. There is no evidence that the shroud contains sufficient quantities of HgS to account for the colour of the stains in question. Does this prove the stains are blood? Certainly not. Does it disprove that that stains are paint? Certainly not. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
2) "There is no evidence there was ever blood on the shroud." Heller and Adler list 12 tests, for which a negative result would have provided evidence that the blood marks were not blood. Some of them are relatively naive, and they certainly, individually or even as a body, do not constitute proof, but they are evidence that the stains are blood. As I said earlier, the lack of potassium is, at least to my mind, strong evidence against blood, and may be the clincher, but to claim that there is no evidence for the other side is simply wrong.
3) "There is good evidence that pigments were used in the creation of the shroud." There is indeed good evidence that there is pigment on the shroud, but it is not yet 'good evidence' that it was involved in the original creation of the image. Certainly iron oxide has been identified on the shroud. And certainly iron oxide is a constituent of red ochre, an artist's pigment. However iron oxide is a constituent of a great many things (my car being one) so in order to claim that it is a pigment we need to show that the other constituents of red ochre are also present (such as cobalt, nickel or manganese). None of these were found by any of those who examined it. Some authenticists claim the iron oxide may be an artefact of the manufacturing process of the linen. I don't know what evidence there is for that. Another way of establishing a pigment is to find it in pigmented areas, and not in others, and certainly the bloodstains contain vastly more iron oxide than expected, showing that indeed, a pigment may play a significant role in their appearance. It does not show that they were never blood in the first place.
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 26th July 2013, 04:45 AM   #8805
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
...
3) "There is good evidence that pigments were used in the creation of the shroud." There is indeed good evidence that there is pigment on the shroud, but it is not yet 'good evidence' that it was involved in the original creation of the image. Certainly iron oxide has been identified on the shroud. And certainly iron oxide is a constituent of red ochre, an artist's pigment. However iron oxide is a constituent of a great many things (my car being one) so in order to claim that it is a pigment we need to show that the other constituents of red ochre are also present (such as cobalt, nickel or manganese). None of these were found by any of those who examined it. Some authenticists claim the iron oxide may be an artefact of the manufacturing process of the linen. I don't know what evidence there is for that. Another way of establishing a pigment is to find it in pigmented areas, and not in others, and certainly the bloodstains contain vastly more iron oxide than expected, showing that indeed, a pigment may play a significant role in their appearance. It does not show that they were never blood in the first place.
Are you saying either a pigment or blood might have been used to either touch-up or enhance the appearance of the 14th century TS?
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 26th July 2013, 04:50 AM   #8806
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
Let's look at another anomaly, shall we? I only ask because some of you may be more familiar with reflectance spectra than I, and this anomaly concerns them.
Four spectra:
1) Reflectance spectrum of 63-day old blood, from "Age estimation of blood stains by hemoglobin derivative determination using reflectance spectroscopy," Forensic Science International, Volume 206, Issues 13, 20 March 2011, Pages 166171, by Bremmer et al. The important diagram is at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7907381000383X (Figure D) or can be found just by Googling it.
2) Reflectance spectrum of red ochre from Roussillon (Southern France), from "Relationship between the colour of ochre from Roussillon and the content of iron-bearing minerals," Applied Clay Science, 01/2011; 51:54-60. This is at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0760.pdf, Figure 9.
3) Reflectance spectrum of vermilion, from "Art and Science: Renaissance Illuminations," National Gallery of Art, Washington, at http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/co...ipts.html.html
4) Reflectance spectrum of shroud blood. From "Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, 1980 Jun 15;19(12):1930-6, by Gilbert and Gilbert. The important diagram is reprinted at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf.

As you will see, there is a pronounced bump-and-dip in the shroud spectrum at about 620nm, which is not present in either of the other two. In fact, the diagram shown is an average of the spectra from four bloodstains (not on the internet unfortunately) all of which show the same distinct bump-and-dip. Neither the old blood spectrum, nor the ochre spectrum, nor the vermilion one, matches this pattern. The nearest I can get to it is a methemoglobin spectrum at http://www.google.com/patents/EP2220249B1?cl=en (Figure 4 - an absorption spectrum, and Figure 5 - a reflectance spectrum), but it is not very clear. Can anyone find a better match for the shroud?
I do UV/Visible spectroscopy 5 days a week, and I'd be hard pressed to draw any conclusions about the shroud based on those spectrograms.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 26th July 2013, 04:58 AM   #8807
sleepy_lioness
Muse
 
sleepy_lioness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
Last year I was dealing with a lot of stress at work and in my personal life, and I was feeling very tired. I went to the doctor and asked if he thought I should have blood tests to check I didn't have any deficiencies or problems. He said no, because he thought that when I was less stressed the tiredness would resolve. In the meantime, he could order endless tests and, eventually, an anomaly would show up, either because in some physiological aspect my figures lay slightly outside the normal range, or because of inaccuracies in the testing. But this anomaly would not be the cause of the tiredness. And he was entirely right.

Hugh, if you keep testing evey small aspect of the Shroud to the nth degree, eventually something will look a bit weird or inexplicable. That's the nature of testing. It doesn't mean there's an actual anomaly, or even that anything particularly interesting is happening. The big picture is that the Shroud is C14th, and a painted image almost certainly with no blood present. Finding a tiny detail which looks a bit odd and fixating on that is - unhelpful.
sleepy_lioness 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 July 2013, 05:07 AM   #8808
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness View Post
Last year I was dealing with a lot of stress at work and in my personal life, and I was feeling very tired. I went to the doctor and asked if he thought I should have blood tests to check I didn't have any deficiencies or problems. He said no, because he thought that when I was less stressed the tiredness would resolve. In the meantime, he could order endless tests and, eventually, an anomaly would show up, either because in some physiological aspect my figures lay slightly outside the normal range, or because of inaccuracies in the testing. But this anomaly would not be the cause of the tiredness. And he was entirely right.

Hugh, if you keep testing evey small aspect of the Shroud to the nth degree, eventually something will look a bit weird or inexplicable. That's the nature of testing. It doesn't mean there's an actual anomaly, or even that anything particularly interesting is happening. The big picture is that the Shroud is C14th, and a painted image almost certainly with no blood present. Finding a tiny detail which looks a bit odd and fixating on that is - unhelpful.
Not to mention that it encourages Jabba to ignore the 800 pound gorrilla in the room.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 26th July 2013, 05:32 AM   #8809
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness View Post
Hugh, if you keep testing evey small aspect of the Shroud to the nth degree, eventually something will look a bit weird or inexplicable. That's the nature of testing. It doesn't mean there's an actual anomaly, or even that anything particularly interesting is happening. The big picture is that the Shroud is C14th, and a painted image almost certainly with no blood present. Finding a tiny detail which looks a bit odd and fixating on that is - unhelpful.
First, a disclaimer: I actually have no problem with what hughfarey is doing except that it is done in this thread and provides Jabba just enough of a (false) reason to avoid the hard discussions. Separate from that, hugh is simply pursuing a passion without intent to sway anyone to any position but merely to do what he enjoys and learn something along the way.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly. This amounts to data mining which is one of the bastions of pseudoscience.
__________________
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 26th July 2013, 06:46 AM   #8810
sleepy_lioness
Muse
 
sleepy_lioness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
First, a disclaimer: I actually have no problem with what hughfarey is doing except that it is done in this thread and provides Jabba just enough of a (false) reason to avoid the hard discussions. Separate from that, hugh is simply pursuing a passion without intent to sway anyone to any position but merely to do what he enjoys and learn something along the way.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly. This amounts to data mining which is one of the bastions of pseudoscience.
I don't know if I entirely agree. Without wanting to speculate too much on Hugh's motives - and he can, of course, speak up for himself if you or I are misrepresenting him - I am a bit troubled by his approach. He has admitted that his impression that 'most' art historians consider the Shroud to be a first-century artifact was wrong, and his posts on that showed how little he knows about art history, as do his arguments from style or 'context'. I don't know much art history either, but I do know how research in the humanities works, and that isn't it.

Arguments from style are considered notoriously bad in art history as in similar fields, because they have misled so often in the past. One example I am aware of: from the nineteenth century onwards it was 'known' that Bach's chorale cantatas were late works, because of their developed and accomplished style, and it was only in about the 1970s (IIRC) that it was conclusively shown, by means of research into the watermarks and paper use, that they were actually among the earliest of his church cantatas. Not knowing a 'context' or appropriate 'style' for an artwork means little, especially since both 'context' and 'style' are later constructions which have been read back into history. It might be that the artwork simply doesn't fit the narrative we have, currently, chosen to tell about art history.

Like many people, Hugh seems to think that history, and the history of art in particular, progresses smoothly, and it is possible to account for all works by reference to their context. Works which are outside this or cannot be explained by reference to a 'style' or 'period' are anomalous and therefore special in some way, and probably more than human. It's the idea that underpins The Da Vinci Code and similar fantasies about the great artists (Leonardo, Mozart, Bach) as somehow super-human or inspired by God. The nineteenth-century concept of genius, in fact. But this would be rejected by all mainstream humanities scholars today, who prefer to take a critical approach to the very concept of 'style' and who think works of art have a very complex relationship to their 'context'. They would say neither that the Shroud is particularly typical of a certain style, nor that it was inexplicably different. Rather, it's just an artifact which can be explained or interpreted in various ways, all of which assume its scientifically-proven fourteenth-century origins.

I think that Hugh's fixation on tiny details of the composition of the Shroud is all of a piece with his general understanding of how such research works. We humanities researchers don't tend to pick on a tiny, apparently aberrant, detail and use it, CSI-style, to 'prove' something amazing about an artifact. Rather, we look at the whole balance of evidence, the big picture if you will, and use that as a basis for interpretation. Occasionally a detail will give pause and might even cause a reinterpretation of the whole work (as in Bach's watermarks), but data mining, as you rightly say, is not how this happens.

Hugh - sorry to talk about you rather than to you in this post, it's just how my musings came out. Hope you're not offended.
sleepy_lioness 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 July 2013, 06:54 AM   #8811
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,286
Good post, lioness.
Sideroxylon 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 July 2013, 07:32 AM   #8812
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Well I think I agree with your views and approach from a humanities point of view, and you're probably right that I'm going about that side of the inquiry in the wrong way. Still, at least I'm trying to find out more about it, which is more than most.

But, as you illustrate rather well with your mention of Bach's watermarks and paper, the scientific approach is exactly the opposite. It is precisely the tiny details, the minutiae of bumps on spectra, or the counting of threads that establish a fact, not a general impression. I couldn't agree less that "finding a tiny detail which looks a bit odd and fixating on that is - unhelpful." It was precisely those tiny details which pinned the shroud to the 14th century, and, for that matter, Bach's chorales to his early period. They can build up and appear apparently contradictory, sometimes without ever being resolved, but the best way of understanding the where, why and how of the shroud (for anybody interested) is to analyse them as best we can. And here, I'm definitely going about it the right way!
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 26th July 2013, 07:50 AM   #8813
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
hughfarey:

Just so we understand your position more clearly, what is your opinion regarding the carbon 14 dating of the shroud?
TimCallahan 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 July 2013, 08:03 AM   #8814
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Pause

Hugh,

- I'm really not trying to "suck up," but you have a new disciple...

- I'd be happy to discuss the shroud with you privately -- if you wished -- but, would prefer to discuss it with you (and others, here and there) on this thread (until Admin tells me that I need to pursue this differently, or just kicks me off).
- I'm really impressed with your research, and your ability to present it.

- Meanwhile, I've gone back to my various old readings (that I don't remember so well) and am finding where I came up with the conclusion that the shroud had to come in contact with actual wounds. I'll get back to you on that.

Everyone,

-Otherwise, I'm 71 years old. Is there anyone on this thread that is as old or older? If so, are you not having memory problems?
- Everyone I know who is about my age is having similar memory problems. I suppose that mine could be worse than theirs, but so far at least, that isn't obvious...

--- 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 July 2013, 08:08 AM   #8815
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
. . . (snip) . . .

Everyone,

-Otherwise, I'm 71 years old. Is there anyone on this thread that is as old or older? If so, are you not having memory problems?
- Everyone I know who is about my age is having similar memory problems. I suppose that mine could be worse than theirs, but so far at least, that isn't obvious...

--- Jabba
I'll be 70 in October. I have no significant memory problems.
TimCallahan 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 July 2013, 08:13 AM   #8816
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
@sleepy lioness:

My one and last defense of Hugh is that while he has had errors of fact and analysis he admits and discards them when shown.

@Jabba:

If your memory is insufficient to the task then stop attempting the task. Further, stop using your memory issues as an excuse to avoid discussion with those whose memories are sufficient. You act as if the fact you vaguely remember an opinion you formed in the past is proof of the veracity of that opinion.

When I finally reach the point where I am unsafe to drive, I hope to have the grace to stop driving and to avoid telling my children that red means go because I remember a paper somewhere that once said so.
__________________
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 26th July 2013, 08:14 AM   #8817
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Blood/ Serum Clot Retraction Rings

- In looking back over various readings, I'm beginning to find the articles that led me to believe that some of the "blood stains" required contact with the wound. www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf is one of those.

Although they sometimes differ on certain matters, all of the medical forensic examinations of the blood images are in agreement that they were exudates from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by its being in contact with a wounded human male body consistent with the historic descriptions given for the Crucifixion of Christ (2,3,4, 5,8,9,10, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,39,40). This conclusion is also consistent with the computer imaging evidence (28). A simple masking transfer experiment (3,4,17,41) has shown that the body images are out of stereoregister with the blood images and therefore have gotten onto the cloth by a non-contact information projective process.3

- For the moment, it appears that the body contact conclusion is based upon stereo registry (image) results rather than the ultra-violet (and SCRR) results.
- Somewhere, Adler claims that the wounds show raised edges. I should be able to track that down...
- I'll be back.

--- 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 July 2013, 08:21 AM   #8818
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,378
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
hughfarey:

Just so we understand your position more clearly, what is your opinion regarding the carbon 14 dating of the shroud?
Give the guy a break, he's already stated it plainly, more than once in this thread. He accepts the carbon 14 dating result as proof that the shroud is not the burial sheet of Christ.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 July 2013, 08:21 AM   #8819
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Pause

Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
@sleepy lioness:

My one and last defense of Hugh is that while he has had errors of fact and analysis he admits and discards them when shown.

@Jabba:

If your memory is insufficient to the task then stop attempting the task. Further, stop using your memory issues as an excuse to avoid discussion with those whose memories are sufficient. You act as if the fact you vaguely remember an opinion you formed in the past is proof of the veracity of that opinion.

When I finally reach the point where I am unsafe to drive, I hope to have the grace to stop driving and to avoid telling my children that red means go because I remember a paper somewhere that once said so.
Garrette,
- I'm sure that you'll have a comeback, but I'll say this anyway. If you think I'm being foolish and wasting your time, don't listen to me.
--- 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 July 2013, 08:28 AM   #8820
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
C14

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Give the guy a break, he's already stated it plainly, more than once in this thread. He accepts the carbon 14 dating result as proof that the shroud is not the burial sheet of Christ.
Zoo,
- I don't think that Hugh has ever claimed that the C14 results proved that the shroud is not the burial sheet of Christ; Hugh just thinks that the evidence supports that conclusion -- probably, strongly supports that conclusion.
--- 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 July 2013, 08:41 AM   #8821
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hugh,

- I'm really not trying to "suck up," but you have a new disciple...

- I'd be happy to discuss the shroud with you privately -- if you wished -- but, would prefer to discuss it with you (and others, here and there) on this thread (until Admin tells me that I need to pursue this differently, or just kicks me off).
- I'm really impressed with your research, and your ability to present it.

[...]
--- Jabba
I'm willing to bet you didn't understand a bit of it, and think it supports your position that the shroud is authentic.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 26th July 2013, 08:48 AM   #8822
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,289
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Garrette,
- I'm sure that you'll have a comeback, but I'll say this anyway. If you think I'm being foolish and wasting your time, don't listen to me.
--- Jabba
I believe that Garrette is saying that you are wasting your own time.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 July 2013, 08:49 AM   #8823
Tomboy
Thinker
 
Tomboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
McCrone completely failed to identify vermilion in his first careful study of blood slides, and only recognised it visually after his team identified it on a single slide by Electron Dispersive X-Ray Analysis. He was, he says in Judgement Day For The Shroud, <snip>
Thanks for pointing me towards Judgement Day for the Shroud. I'm curious and interested enough that I ordered a used copy from amazon. *tips hat*
Tomboy 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 July 2013, 08:51 AM   #8824
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness View Post
I don't know if I entirely agree. Without wanting to speculate too much on Hugh's motives - and he can, of course, speak up for himself if you or I are misrepresenting him - I am a bit troubled by his approach. He has admitted that his impression that 'most' art historians consider the Shroud to be a first-century artifact was wrong, and his posts on that showed how little he knows about art history, as do his arguments from style or 'context'. I don't know much art history either, but I do know how research in the humanities works, and that isn't it.

Arguments from style are considered notoriously bad in art history as in similar fields, because they have misled so often in the past. One example I am aware of: from the nineteenth century onwards it was 'known' that Bach's chorale cantatas were late works, because of their developed and accomplished style, and it was only in about the 1970s (IIRC) that it was conclusively shown, by means of research into the watermarks and paper use, that they were actually among the earliest of his church cantatas. Not knowing a 'context' or appropriate 'style' for an artwork means little, especially since both 'context' and 'style' are later constructions which have been read back into history. It might be that the artwork simply doesn't fit the narrative we have, currently, chosen to tell about art history.

Like many people, Hugh seems to think that history, and the history of art in particular, progresses smoothly, and it is possible to account for all works by reference to their context. Works which are outside this or cannot be explained by reference to a 'style' or 'period' are anomalous and therefore special in some way, and probably more than human. It's the idea that underpins The Da Vinci Code and similar fantasies about the great artists (Leonardo, Mozart, Bach) as somehow super-human or inspired by God. The nineteenth-century concept of genius, in fact. But this would be rejected by all mainstream humanities scholars today, who prefer to take a critical approach to the very concept of 'style' and who think works of art have a very complex relationship to their 'context'. They would say neither that the Shroud is particularly typical of a certain style, nor that it was inexplicably different. Rather, it's just an artifact which can be explained or interpreted in various ways, all of which assume its scientifically-proven fourteenth-century origins.

I think that Hugh's fixation on tiny details of the composition of the Shroud is all of a piece with his general understanding of how such research works. We humanities researchers don't tend to pick on a tiny, apparently aberrant, detail and use it, CSI-style, to 'prove' something amazing about an artifact. Rather, we look at the whole balance of evidence, the big picture if you will, and use that as a basis for interpretation. Occasionally a detail will give pause and might even cause a reinterpretation of the whole work (as in Bach's watermarks), but data mining, as you rightly say, is not how this happens.

Hugh - sorry to talk about you rather than to you in this post, it's just how my musings came out. Hope you're not offended.
Quote:
(as in Bach's watermarks)
That comment took me back to Peter Schickele's brilliant satire of that investigation
http://www.bandnotes.info/tidbits/pdq/getthejoke.htm
"P. D. Q. Bach, always a heavy drinker, used to weigh down his manuscript paper with almost anything that came to hand. Often a stein - whether full, empty, or "partially used," was the first thing that came to hand. Since the bottoms of these steins were often damp due to P. D. Q.'s rather sloppy drinking habits, they would leave a ring on the paper of his manuscripts. By knowing the characteristics of the steins in the various taverns in which P. D. Q. was wont to hang out, and by knowing the dates of his tenure at each of these places (often by means of the dunning letters ["you still owe for dinners on the following dates!"] on the back of which he wrote his scores) we are able with great confidence to determine just where and when P. D. Q. wrote each of his compositions. This method of dating by the rings the steins left on the manuscripts is known as the "Steinway"."
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 26th July 2013, 08:54 AM   #8825
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,378
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
So, does that mean you've changed your mind about this?
Yes. I guess one should not completely discount any possibility, but I consider it infinitesimal.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I don't think that Hugh has ever claimed that the C14 results proved that the shroud is not the burial sheet of Christ; Hugh just thinks that the evidence supports that conclusion -- probably, strongly supports that conclusion.
--- Jabba
A meaningless distinction, in practice. See what Hugh said, above (there are a couple of other examples in the thread). I realise you are still going to seize on what you think may be support for your position, but an infinitesimal chance of the shroud being genuine is not something to cling to.

The shroud dates to the 14th Century. That means that it is not the burial sheet of Christ (or anyone else from the 1st Century).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 July 2013, 08:56 AM   #8826
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Pause

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I believe that Garrette is saying that you are wasting your own time.
Abaddon,
- I'm 71 years old. What would you (or Garrette) have me doing instead?
--- 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 July 2013, 08:58 AM   #8827
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
The first three sentences are transparently untrue. The fourth I agree with.
1) "Shifting the burden of proof." From whom to whom? There is a red stain on a cloth. I think it contains blood. You think it doesn't. We both need evidence to support our claim. There is no evidence that the shroud contains sufficient quantities of HgS to account for the colour of the stains in question. Does this prove the stains are blood? Certainly not. Does it disprove that that stains are paint? Certainly not. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
2) "There is no evidence there was ever blood on the shroud." Heller and Adler list 12 tests, for which a negative result would have provided evidence that the blood marks were not blood. Some of them are relatively naive, and they certainly, individually or even as a body, do not constitute proof, but they are evidence that the stains are blood. As I said earlier, the lack of potassium is, at least to my mind, strong evidence against blood, and may be the clincher, but to claim that there is no evidence for the other side is simply wrong.
3) "There is good evidence that pigments were used in the creation of the shroud." There is indeed good evidence that there is pigment on the shroud, but it is not yet 'good evidence' that it was involved in the original creation of the image. Certainly iron oxide has been identified on the shroud. And certainly iron oxide is a constituent of red ochre, an artist's pigment. However iron oxide is a constituent of a great many things (my car being one) so in order to claim that it is a pigment we need to show that the other constituents of red ochre are also present (such as cobalt, nickel or manganese). None of these were found by any of those who examined it. Some authenticists claim the iron oxide may be an artefact of the manufacturing process of the linen. I don't know what evidence there is for that. Another way of establishing a pigment is to find it in pigmented areas, and not in others, and certainly the bloodstains contain vastly more iron oxide than expected, showing that indeed, a pigment may play a significant role in their appearance. It does not show that they were never blood in the first place.
I disagree that point two is evidence for blood. It seems to me that the test results, whether viable or not, don't exclude the possibility of blood. But this is not evidence of blood being present, right?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 July 2013, 09:00 AM   #8828
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,815
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Not to mention that it encourages Jabba to ignore the 800 pound gorrilla in the room.
#
This one?

__________________
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 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 July 2013, 09:01 AM   #8829
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 6,361
I too am 71 (please don't tell Luciana, she thinks I'm an interesting 40), and I'm trying to remember even one fact in support of the Shroud's authenticity that Jabba or anybody else has come up with.

Well well, us old fellers get a tad cobwebby in the upper story. Can somebody help me out here?
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett 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 July 2013, 09:15 AM   #8830
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I do UV/Visible spectroscopy 5 days a week, and I'd be hard pressed to draw any conclusions about the shroud based on those spectrograms.
Is that because the spectrograms are faulty or something?

I have some basic understanding of absorption / emission and would like to know more. If you have time. =)
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 July 2013, 09:17 AM   #8831
Tomboy
Thinker
 
Tomboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
I too am 71 (please don't tell Luciana, she thinks I'm an interesting 40), and I'm trying to remember even one fact in support of the Shroud's authenticity that Jabba or anybody else has come up with.

Well well, us old fellers get a tad cobwebby in the upper story. Can somebody help me out here?
Well, there's this invisible patch, see...
Tomboy 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 July 2013, 09:21 AM   #8832
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Surely those three gentlemen don't weigh 800 pounds?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 July 2013, 09:32 AM   #8833
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Abaddon,
- I'm 71 years old. What would you (or Garrette) have me doing instead?
--- Jabba
As Abaddon said, I was suggesting you are wasting your own time; I am the only one capable of wasting mine.

In response to this question: start being intellectually honest about your own limited knowledge and the real weight of evidence.
__________________
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 26th July 2013, 09:58 AM   #8834
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
As Abaddon said, I was suggesting you are wasting your own time; I am the only one capable of wasting mine.

In response to this question: start being intellectually honest about your own limited knowledge and the real weight of evidence.
This^
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 July 2013, 10:03 AM   #8835
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
Is that because the spectrograms are faulty or something?

I have some basic understanding of absorption / emission and would like to know more. If you have time. =)
Because the spectrograms I saw are not particularly distinctive. They could be anything.

I don't consider UV/Vis spectroscopy alone a very good qualitative tool with the exception of photodiode arrays (PDAs) used in high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). It has its greatest use in my laboratory as a quantitative tool.

IOW, it will tell us how much there is of something based on the intensity of the absorption or transmission if we know what the substance is, but we have to rely on other means to deterine the identity before we can quantitate it.

Even when using PDAs with an HPLC, the first means of identification is the retention time, and the UV/Vis spectrum generated is sometimes used as confirmation of identity.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 26th July 2013, 10:04 AM   #8836
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Yes, you're right. On the whole, scientists don't prove things. Mathematicians prove things. Scientists establish or demonstrate things to the satisfaction of other scientists. I am satisfied that the C14 dates demonstrate that the shroud is medieval. That's as close as scientists go towards proof. I am not satisfied that the bloodstains are blood, nor that they are paint. I don't consider either of them to have been demonstrated satisfactorily.
But as I have said before; why does it matter what I think? I don't want anybody to accept the evidence I present simply because I think the shroud is 14th century, and I wouldn't want anybody to reject it if I thought the opposite. You can look through my references and decide for yourself. Am I wrong about McCrone? Am I wrong about Heller? If so, where? That's what matters. And I find nothing wrong with changing my mind in response to new evidence (new to me, obviously). That's what the E in JREF is for, and the main reason I joined this thread in the first place.

Back to the serum. The Adler paper quoted by Jabba is not very satisfactory, I'm afraid. It's a summing up of various findings for the Richmond Conference of 1999, a year before he died. Jabba's quotation above is mainly about exudates, and I have to say I'm not happy about exudates. Exudates are not very red, in my experience, and they do not trickle well. They ooze, they may drip, but they do not pour from one side of a cloth to the other leaving little wriggles. They are mostly composed of serum, which fluoresces brightly. The bloodstains do not fluoresce at all, and they are rarely surrounded by a fluorescent border. I have mentioned Miller and Pellicori's paper several times, and although it is often mentioned, it is very rarely actually read. "Every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring," says Adler, and he's wrong. I have the paper he quotes from in front of me now and they just don't.
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 26th July 2013, 10:17 AM   #8837
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,685
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hugh,

- I'm really not trying to "suck up," but you have a new disciple...

So nauseating, on so many levels.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten 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 July 2013, 10:24 AM   #8838
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,378
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hugh,

- I'm really not trying to "suck up," but you have a new disciple...
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
. I am satisfied that the C14 dates demonstrate that the shroud is medieval.
Jabba, are you actually reading what Hugh is saying?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 July 2013, 10:26 AM   #8839
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hugh,

- I'm really not trying to "suck up," but you have a new disciple...

- I'd be happy to discuss the shroud with you privately -- if you wished -- but, would prefer to discuss it with you (and others, here and there) on this thread (until Admin tells me that I need to pursue this differently, or just kicks me off).
- I'm really impressed with your research, and your ability to present it.
Jabba, this post is intended seriously and kindly, though I suspect it will not come across that way.

I can believe that you think you admire hugh for the reasons you give here, but I do not think they are the real reasons at all. It is apparent that the real reason you admire hughfarey is that his perspective gives you just enough logical cover to continue the pretense that the issue is still in doubt. Your emotional attachment to the issue prevents you seeing this.

Let me assure you that nothing hugh has posted gives any legitimacy to the claims of authenticity. Nothing.

Allow me an analogy:

Imagine a car sitting in my garage, a car that has never been seen in operation. You claim the car can win the Daytona 500. As evidence you point to the visually impressive engine. In rebuttal, I demonstrate that the engine is a plastic replica with no moving parts. Further, I show that there is no gas tank and the wheels do not move. Then hugh comes in and explains where the plastic engine came from and that the density of some of the plastic matches the density of the metal parts it represents. Further, hugh shows that while the engine may not work, the radio is undoubtedly operational and the windows roll down.

The analogous responses are these:

Me: The car cannot win the Daytona 500.

You: The plastic density issue, which no one has ever disproven, coupled with the operational radio and the working windows cast doubt on the claim that the engine does not work so we will agree to disagree.

That's how I honestly see it, Jabba. You have no case, and hughfarey only appears (through no fault of his own) to give credence to the idea that you do.
__________________
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 26th July 2013, 10:28 AM   #8840
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,289
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Abaddon,
- I'm 71 years old. What would you (or Garrette) have me doing instead?
--- Jabba
Spend more time with your kids/grandkids

Take up a real hobby, gardening, stamp collecting, origami, anything from the real world.

Study a lot and become an antiques expert

Pretty much anything but continue wasting your time on a fake piece of cloth.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 06:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.