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 September 2012, 08:57 AM   #3281
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You don't know enough about radiometric dating to determine what is reasonable or not. You are continuing to ignore what the experts say about reweaving techniques, demonstrating that you're not honest enough to determine what's reasonable or not in that regard. Furthermore, you're not attempting to learn the truth, but rather to support an a priori conclusion, meaning that your entire view of this question is so biased that I simply cannot trust you to determine what counter-arguments (not objections--THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM) are valid.

Don't lump me in with that. My objection to Jabba messing with what I say is that I don't believe Jabba is capable of accurately representing what I say (and that I think he's attempting to manipulate the style of argument to favor his side, whether the facts do or not--something he's admitted to trying before). I've made my reasoning very clear: Jabba demonstrably doesn't know enough about these systems (some of which are quite complex) to accurately paraphrase statements about them. So frankly I wouldn't accept ANY paraphrasing from Jabba.

Again, don't lump me in with that. I'm not offended; I merely don't trust Jabba to accurately represent what I've said (for the reasons I give above).
This appears to me to be the heart of the matter,
1. Do we believe Jabba/Rick is doing this to help facilitate debate?
No. Based on previous conduct Jabba/Rick appears to be doing this to control and limit debate and insulate pro-authenticity arguments from examination.

2. Do we trust Jabba/Rick to transmit material from here accurately?
No. Jabba/Rick has demonstrated dishonesty and bias and has shown himself incapable of understanding the technical material discussed here.
__________________
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 September 2012, 09:09 AM   #3282
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,470
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
This appears to me to be the heart of the matter,
1. Do we believe Jabba/Rick is doing this to help facilitate debate?
No. Based on previous conduct Jabba/Rick appears to be doing this to control and limit debate and insulate pro-authenticity arguments from examination.
I found the comment the other day about how he is looking for data to support his belief that the carbon data is wrong.

Why should that be? Shouldn't the belief that the carbon data is wrong already have some data to support it? If not, why cling to that belief?
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold 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 September 2012, 09:24 AM   #3283
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I found the comment the other day about how he is looking for data to support his belief that the carbon data is wrong.

Why should that be? Shouldn't the belief that the carbon data is wrong already have some data to support it? If not, why cling to that belief?
You're thinking like someone who's interested in the truth. Jabba doesn't appear to be--he appears to be looking for justifications to cling to his belief. It's a whole different mindset.
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 September 2012, 09:25 AM   #3284
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You're thinking like someone who's interested in the truth. Jabba doesn't appear to be--he appears to be looking for justifications to cling to his belief. It's a whole different mindset.
But from my experience, among anybody no matter the belief (or disbelief), it is a well widespread mindset.
Aepervius 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 September 2012, 02:16 PM   #3285
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I've been watching the posts in this thread and have been disappointed about what I thought was the unnecessarily antagonistic posts, but I thought I had said about all that I had to say about that and repeating myself wouldn't serve any purpose.

However, I think Giordano's suggestion goes to what I thought Jabba intended. There seems to be some line between paraphrasing somebody and summarizing their arguments that I don't quite get. Numerous people seem to have taken objection to Jabba's stated intent to paraphrase their arguments on a different site, but Giordana is proposing that Jabba summarize their arguments and post them on a different site. One seems to be OK and the other seems to be something to take offense at. They seem to be quite a similar idea to me.

Regardless, Giordana's approach seems reasonable to me. With respect, Jabba might consider using Catsmate1's summary of the arguments against the authenticity of the shroud as an outline which could be fleshed out with references and details available in this thread. Alternatively, he could look at a few of the shroud skeptic sites for an organized set of arguments against shroud authenticity. I've looked at a few of them and at least one of them had a pretty good organized overview of the arguments against authenticity. I don't know which one that was right now though.

The difficulty is that most or all of the standard arguments against shroud authenticity have been responded to by shroud believers and I am not sure exactly of the value of this exercise. I don't think the shroud believer arguments are valid but I also don't think any discussion is likely to change their minds.
I'm sorry, but if you read my many other posts you would see that I am profoundly against Jabba posting our comments or their paraphrasing elsewhere. I was suggesting Jabba finally take the time to review this thread and at long last provide his rebuttals and new evidence here, on this thread.
Giordano 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 September 2012, 03:23 PM   #3286
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Carbon Dating/Getting Past the Experts

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Jabba,

Feel free to bring the information from Ron (the guy on the other forum) here. Just make sure you get his sources before you do. If you simply quote or paraphrase him, you know the reaction here will be "Says who?".

Ward
Ward,
- In the following, you probably won't need the sources, so please let me know if, and where, you do.
- And by the way -- lately, I haven't been able to use the tool bar in the posting display(?). Would you know why not?
--- Jabba

"Madam Flury-Lemburg had absolutely nothing to do with the sample location choice, two little known textile experts were brought in and it was argued over for two hours where the sample would be taken from (last minute) and not even by the experts. These textile experts, basically, had NO prior experience with the Shroud. Absolutely no prior technical information was actually consulted, as in STURP photographs etc. It ‘seemed’ the choice was made blind. Prof Testore/Riggi cut a much larger sample from the cloth but kept more then half for personal use/study... The event was video taped, but as mentioned, not all of it! Why? is the big question here. Why would you video tape most of the proceedings then go to a seperate room, with only two individuals involved, one being Mr Tite and not tape ‘extremely important’ sample packaging?…the whole thing was problematic.

"As for Ms. Lemburg’s negating the patch theory; Funny how she wasn’t even aware of ‘French-Invisible-Reweaving’ methods, evidenced by her comments that all stitching would show signs on atleast one side or the other? Did she even look at the cloth through any instruments other then her own eyes? The patching or stitching was “independently observed” by atleast three independent sources, thru J.Marino and Sue Bedford’s investigations into the patching theory.

"Just to many unanswered questions, and very questionable dealings occurred during the whole process, if you ask me ;-)"
__________________
"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 è 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 September 2012, 03:33 PM   #3287
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,640
INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!


Jesus Christ.
carlitos 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 September 2012, 03:46 PM   #3288
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Carbon Dating/Getting Past the Experts

Ward,
- The following is a source I provided a while back, but just in case you missed or forgot it, look up #39 & #43. They talk about invisible re-weaving.
--- 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 è 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 September 2012, 06:53 PM   #3289
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,468
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!


Jesus Christ.
Quoted in case Jabba has you on ignore.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 September 2012, 07:24 PM   #3290
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,
- The following is a source I provided a while back, but just in case you missed or forgot it, look up #39 & #43. They talk about invisible re-weaving.
--- Jabba
No link!
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 September 2012, 09:26 PM   #3291
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,
- The following is a source I provided a while back, but just in case you missed or forgot it, look up #39 & #43. They talk about invisible re-weaving.
--- Jabba
Jabba,

I don't why your toolbar is not working properly. I'm the wrong person to ask about that. Someone else here might be able to help, but probably in a different thread on a different sub-foum.

On to the topic at hand:

You really feel that some dude named Ron is a good enough source for all the claims he made in that post? Seriously? I cannot believe that your standards are that low.

And neither posts #39 nor #43 were made by you, however I remember the articles you brought to us about French "invisible" re-weaving. Here's what I remember based on the sources that you brought to us. It is neither invisible nor would it effect the C14 dating since, by definition, it would have used threads taken from other matching parts all over the shroud. If it were an "invisible" re-weave (highly unlikely in the first place), then it would have been the best possible sample of the entire shroud because it would have contained threads from all over the original fabric of the shroud. Either way, the C14 dating does not change.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe 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 September 2012, 11:59 PM   #3292
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Here's the link Jabba wasn't able to provide:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

It's a profoundly embarrassing thing to read, of course, but apparently it's the best on the subject the pro-authenticity people have in their arsenal, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why embarrassing?
I won't take the edge off the forum's amusement at the authors' reasoning.
Enjoy.
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 September 2012, 02:14 AM   #3293
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Here's the link Jabba wasn't able to provide:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

It's a profoundly embarrassing thing to read, of course, but apparently it's the best on the subject the pro-authenticity people have in their arsenal, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why embarrassing?
I won't take the edge off the forum's amusement at the authors' reasoning.
Enjoy.


I thought I'd seen as much drivel as it was possible to write about the shroud but apparently, just like scientology, it's always worse than you think.

This snippet from the conclusion does well to explain the fantasyland thinking in which these people engage:

Quote:
The tragedy of the ill-fated 1988 C-14 dating is, in one respect, the tragic result of an ill-fated love story.


How nauseating, not just in itself, but in terms of its appearance in what purports to be a scientific analysis.
__________________


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 27th September 2012, 03:26 AM   #3294
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In the following, you probably won't need the sources, so please let me know if, and where, you do.
Everything you say needs support, you've shown yourself to be unreliable.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
"Madam Flury-Lemburg had absolutely nothing to do with the sample location choice, two little known textile experts were brought in and it was argued over for two hours where the sample would be taken from (last minute) and not even by the experts.
Firstly your "source" can't even get the name correct; it's Flury-Lemberg.
Secondly the "little known textile experts" (a bit of a contradiction?) were Professor Testore (Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic) and Dr. Vial (Musée des Tissues and Centre International d'Étude des Textiles Anciens at Lyon). Not exactly idiots grabbed from the streets as your "source" seems to want to imply.
Interestingly the change was made by Cardinal Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, acting on advice from Dr. Gonella, who was a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.

So Jabba/Rick are you back to pathetic conspiracy theories? More attempts to smear those who disprove your beliefs like you tried with McCrone?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
These textile experts, basically, had NO prior experience with the Shroud.
Why is this a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Absolutely no prior technical information was actually consulted, as in STURP photographs etc.
Give the quality of STURP's work is this a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It ‘seemed’ the choice was made blind.
No the location selected was adjacent to the one used in 1973 to remove a sample for examination by STURP. There was extensive prior discussion and consideration.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Prof Testore/Riggi cut a much larger sample from the cloth but kept more then half for personal use/study...
Citation required. The documented (and video recorded) record of the process does not show this. Perhaps (and I'm being charitable) your source is confusing the removing of the backing cloth?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The event was video taped, but as mentioned, not all of it! hy? is the big question here. Why would you video tape most of the proceedings then go to a seperate room, with only two individuals involved, one being Mr Tite and not tape ‘extremely important’ sample packaging?…the whole thing was problematic.
More pathetic conspiratorial ramblings. Actually the answer is quite simple, of your source had bothered to check; the samples were taken into an adjacent room for wrapping (in aluminium foil) and sealing in transport containers by Dr. Tite and Cardinal Ballestrero (the video camera being mounted in the main room). This was part of the blinding process, each laboratory received four samples, one from the shroud and three controls; the laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
"As for Ms. Lemburg’s negating the patch theory; Funny how she wasn’t even aware of ‘French-Invisible-Reweaving’ methods, evidenced by her comments that all stitching would show signs on atleast one side or the other? Did she even look at the cloth through any instruments other then her own eyes? The patching or stitching was “independently observed” by atleast three independent sources, thru J.Marino and Sue Bedford’s investigations into the patching theory.
Again the woman's name is Flury-Lemberg.
I'd like to see your source's evidence for these claimed patches/stitches which seem to have escaped notice by experts and avoided being photographed (yes the sampled are was photographed before being cut) but appear to an ex-Benedictine and a wooster with no skills or experience.
We've dealt with the Marino/Benford nonsense before.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
"Just to many unanswered questions, and very questionable dealings occurred during the whole process, if you ask me ;-)"
Worthless personal opinion. If your source had actually bothered to look s/he's have found the answers easily.
But that would require and open mind.
__________________
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 27th September 2012, 03:29 AM   #3295
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!


Jesus Christ.
Now, now stop confusing Jabba/Rick with facts.
__________________
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 27th September 2012, 03:53 AM   #3296
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Contamination? Nope.

As part of my on/off efforts to produce a definitive list of points for the shroud's medieval origin I re-read the original documentation of the radiocarbon examination process. This leads me to consider the idea of sample contamination (beloved of the shroudies) is even less likely than I'd previously considered.

Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive multi-stage cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleaned sample in half; the first set were again split into three parts and sets were subjected to:
1. room temperature 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid bathing again, with water rinsing in between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid bathing again, with water rinsing in between each course.
The second batch of samples were kept until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples (from each of the four textile samples provided, the shroud and three controls) was treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again in acid, with rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all samples were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride for thirty minutes.

Not that these mere facts will stop the pro-shroud lunacy, but I thought this might be of interest.
__________________
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 27th September 2012, 04:26 AM   #3297
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Jabba,

I don't why your toolbar is not working properly. I'm the wrong person to ask about that. Someone else here might be able to help, but probably in a different thread on a different sub-foum.

On to the topic at hand:

You really feel that some dude named Ron is a good enough source for all the claims he made in that post? Seriously? I cannot believe that your standards are that low.

And neither posts #39 nor #43 were made by you, however I remember the articles you brought to us about French "invisible" re-weaving. Here's what I remember based on the sources that you brought to us. It is neither invisible nor would it effect the C14 dating since, by definition, it would have used threads taken from other matching parts all over the shroud. If it were an "invisible" re-weave (highly unlikely in the first place), then it would have been the best possible sample of the entire shroud because it would have contained threads from all over the original fabric of the shroud. Either way, the C14 dating does not change.

Ward
Ward,
- For some reason, I'm not able to edit what I submit these days.
- I realized after submitting the post about #'s 39 and 43, I hadn't included the link. I realized this right away and tried to edit, and include the link, but it wouldn't "take." That link was http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf.
- I've been called to breakfast. I'll be right 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 è 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 September 2012, 04:31 AM   #3298
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3296
Quote:
As part of my on/off efforts to produce a definitive list of points for the shroud's medieval origin I re-read the original documentation of the radiocarbon examination process. This leads me to consider the idea of sample contamination (beloved of the shroudies) is even less likely than I'd previously considered.

Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive multi-stage cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleaned sample in half; the first set were again split into three parts and sets were subjected to:
1. room temperature 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid bathing again, with water rinsing in between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid bathing again, with water rinsing in between each course.
The second batch of samples were kept until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples (from each of the four textile samples provided, the shroud and three controls) was treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again in acid, with rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all samples were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride for thirty minutes.

Not that these mere facts will stop the pro-shroud lunacy, but I thought this might be of interest.
Yes, indeed, catesmate1.
When I first read that information I asked myself-
OK, what do the 'contamination' proponents smoke for breakfast? Where do they buy it? Why haven't they ever invited me to join them?

Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
...Interestingly the change was [in textile experts] made by Cardinal Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, acting on advice from Dr. Gonella, who was a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.
So, which of them was part of the conspiracy, then?
The Cardinal or Dr. Gonella?
Or both?

Quote:
... the samples were taken into an adjacent room for wrapping (in aluminium foil) and sealing in transport containers by Dr. Tite and Cardinal Ballestrero (the video camera being mounted in the main room). This was part of the blinding process, each laboratory received four samples, one from the shroud and three controls; the laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. ...
I thought it was most charitable of you to explain what 'blinding' means, catesmate1.


Quote:
...We've dealt with the Marino/Benford nonsense before.
Well, yes, but the way the authors dragged in the Archduchess is always worth a giggle, don't you think?

The phrase following the one cited by Pharaoh earlier says it all:
The few short but blissful years Margaret of Austria had with her one true love set in motion a lifetime mission to fulfill her beloved’s dying request to build a church in Brou.

Last edited by pakeha; 27th September 2012 at 04:36 AM. Reason: clarification, corrected quote-fu. Isn't editing fun?
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 September 2012, 04:38 AM   #3299
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
^
Yes.
When I first read that information I asked myself-
OK, what do the 'contamination' proponents smoke for breakfast? Where do they buy it? Why haven't they ever invited me to join them?
Indeed, the more you look at it the more stupid that theory becomes.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
...Interestingly the change was [in textile experts] made by Cardinal Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, acting on advice from Dr. Gonella, who was a believer in the authenticity of the shroud and a member of STURP.
So, which of them was part of the conspiracy, then?
The Cardinal or Dr. Gonella?
Or both?
Well given that Jabba/Rick's "source" also implies malfeasence on the part the sample handlers also, it'd have to be the Cardinal-Archbishop.



Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I thought it was most charitable of you to explain what 'blinding' means, catesmate1.
Well Jabba/Rick seems a little uncertain on the science-y bits.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Well, yes, but the way the authors dragged in the Archduchess is always worth a giggle, don't you think?


Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
The phrase following the one cited by Pharaoh earlier says it all:
The few short but blissful years Margaret of Austria had with her one true love set in motion a lifetime mission to fulfill her beloved’s dying request to build a church in Brou.

Though if you look at Benford, or the links posted earlier in this thread when Jabba/Rick brought her ravings in first, you'll see she's a general purpose woo.
__________________
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 27th September 2012, 04:39 AM   #3300
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...- I realized after submitting the post about #'s 39 and 43, I hadn't included the link. I realized this right away and tried to edit, and include the link, but it wouldn't "take." That link was http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf. ...
Wouldn't it have been more to the point to post a link to the article itself?
Remember?
The article about reweaving and invisible patching I posted earlier?

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

Last edited by pakeha; 27th September 2012 at 04:52 AM.
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 September 2012, 05:01 AM   #3301
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Wouldn't it have been more to the point to post a link to the article itself?


If it takes 13 hours to come up with an excuse for not posting a link in the first place I have a feeling we'll all be dead and buried by the time you get an answer to this.


Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Remember?

The article about reweaving and invisible patching I posted earlier?

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf


I'm starting to develop a strong suspicion that Jabba is only reading what he considers to be selected highlights of the thread and that neither yours nor catsmate's (and mine for sure) posts are in that category.
__________________


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 27th September 2012, 05:12 AM   #3302
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
Be fair, Oh Pharaoh!
Jabba did say he was smoking sorry, having 'breakfast'.

Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
...Though if you look at Benford, or the links posted earlier in this thread when Jabba/Rick brought her ravings in first, you'll see she's a general purpose woo.
This Benford?
Quote:
M. Sue Benford, R.N., M.A. states: “The acceptance and appreciation of torsion fields, with their influencing spin characteristics both in defining and refining matter, opens a new perspective of scientific exploration into psi-phenomena. Possibly, we can conclude that life, and even mind, may be a manifestation of the constant, albeit subtle, interaction of the wave packets classically known as “matter” with the underlying physically real vacuum field.”
http://community.beliefnet.com/manda...py_%28reiki%29

Breakfast time!
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 September 2012, 05:36 AM   #3303
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,525
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,
- For some reason, I'm not able to edit what I submit these days.
Is it possible you've disabled Javascript in your browser?
__________________
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
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 27th September 2012, 07:06 AM   #3304
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
^
Be fair, Oh Pharaoh!
Jabba did say he was smoking sorry, having 'breakfast'.



This Benford?

http://community.beliefnet.com/manda...py_%28reiki%29

Breakfast time!
That's her. Not exactly a person whose unsupported opinion on the validity of the shroud carries much weight.
__________________
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 27th September 2012, 07:37 AM   #3305
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,
- The following is a source I provided a while back, but just in case you missed or forgot it, look up #39 & #43. They talk about invisible re-weaving.
--- Jabba
I've also provided links regarding reweaving. Mine are from people who ACTUALLY DO IT. They say two pertanent things:

1) It's nto invisible, and is obvious to anyone who examines the textile closely; and
2) It uses material from the same cloth, so it won't impact radiometric dating at all.

Quote:
"Madam Flury-Lemburg had absolutely nothing to do with the sample location choice, two little known textile experts were brought in and it was argued over for two hours where the sample would be taken from (last minute) and not even by the experts.
You've obviously never done any sampling. I've said that before, by the way, and it still holds true. You NEVER get the higher-ups to take the samples--usually it's the new guy doing it. The fact that there were textile experts AT ALL makes this a better sampling protocol than any I'm familiar with (in environmental sampling there's a geologist involved, but they typically are learning the local geology as they're sampling it). And unless you can prove that the FIBERS are different, you've still got nothing.

Quote:
These textile experts, basically, had NO prior experience with the Shroud. Absolutely no prior technical information was actually consulted, as in STURP photographs etc. It ‘seemed’ the choice was made blind.
Doesn't matter. Unless you can demosntrate that THE FIBERS were different from the fibers of the rest of the shroud (which reweaving demonstrably cannot do), it simply doesn't matter where the sample was taken from.

Quote:
The event was video taped, but as mentioned, not all of it! hy? is the big question here.
No. The big question is why they bothered to tape ANY of it. I've taken hundreds, if not thousands, of samples. Except for security camera footage, I've never been videotaped. And we're talking samples that will determine whether companies need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. These critiques are coming from someone with no understanding of the actual methods of sampling. It's like if someone let a kid who just learned how to read critique The Lord of the Rings....

Quote:
"As for Ms. Lemburg’s negating the patch theory; Funny how she wasn’t even aware of ‘French-Invisible-Reweaving’ methods, evidenced by her comments that all stitching would show signs on atleast one side or the other?
Funny how your side ignores the fact that French reweaving methods ARE VISIBLE. We've demonstrated that so often that it can only be willful dishonesty on your part, Jabba, to continue with that line of reasoning. There's simply no other explanation.
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 27th September 2012, 07:40 AM   #3306
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,640
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Quoted in case Jabba has you on ignore.
You too, apparently. My fault for replying in this train wreck of a thread.
carlitos 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 September 2012, 07:42 AM   #3307
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,640
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I've also provided links regarding reweaving. Mine are from people who ACTUALLY DO IT. They say two pertanent things:

1) It's nto invisible, and is obvious to anyone who examines the textile closely; and
2) It uses material from the same cloth, so it won't impact radiometric dating at all.
Just checking to see if this is visible in the breakfast nook.
carlitos 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 September 2012, 07:57 AM   #3308
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Carbon Dating - Reweaving?

- After more careful reading, it appears (as you guys imply) that Rogers, Benford, Marino and Pryor haven't taken into account a particular aspect of the Frenway method of reweave (to which they seem to be referring)...

- “First, you must be let in on a trade secret: Except in rare cases, you get thread to reweave a damaged place from hidden parts of the garment itself, from some place where the appearance and strength of the garment is not harmed in any way.” (From http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf, page 38)
- And then, “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on PRISTINE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL (my emphasis) to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth.” (from page 7 of the Thermochimica Acta article by Rogers at http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)

- Rogers was apparently not tuned into the part about threads “of the garment itself.”
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will 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 è 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 September 2012, 08:01 AM   #3309
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Help

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Is it possible you've disabled Javascript in your browser?
Zoo,
- Could be. Can you easily describe how to re-able 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 è 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 September 2012, 08:20 AM   #3310
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.
Translation: You're looking for yet another excuse to ignore the basic facts of the matter.

It's very simple, Jabba: There is NO way to patch the shroud without it being detectable. None. Zero. The set is empty. It is impossible. It cannot be done.

Give it up.
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 27th September 2012, 08:50 AM   #3311
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Jabba, can I ask you a simple question?

Do you know what happens to cloth as it ages?
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 September 2012, 08:57 AM   #3312
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Could be. Can you easily describe how to re-able it?
--- Jabba


Jab,
- First you will need to travel to Indonesia to ensure that you get genuine Javanese files.
--- Akha
__________________


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 27th September 2012, 09:18 AM   #3313
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,162
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!


Jesus Christ.
Why?

The invisible patch hypothesis includes the claim that somebody can either attach threads to the ends of existing threads in some way that has not been demonstrated to be possible or that somebody can remove entire threads from the shroud that cross the area to be patched and reweave in new threads. This hypothesis doesn't necessarily require the reuse of existing threads.

That a technique has been documented that uses existing threads doesn't mean that the invisible patch hypothesis needs to involve the use existing threads. Of course, the requirement to find medieval threads by these hypothetical invisible patching "magicians" that would match first century threads so well that nobody noticed the difference between the fourteenth century threads they used and the existing first century threads adds to the implausibility of the invisible patch hypothesis but that doesn't mean that the invisible patch hypothesis needs to include the use of existing threads. It is already an implausible hypothesis, there is no restriction on adding additional implausible elements to an implausible hypothesis.

Comment on the Benford/Marino paper linked to above
Why are they wasting their time writing this stuff? If they believe a truly invisible patch is possible why don't they make one or find somebody that can. Better yet why don't they find an example of invisible medieval patching or even some medieval documentation of the process? Of course the reason that they don't do any of that is that invisible patching like they hypothesize is impossible but miscellaneous unsubstantiated blathering is something they can do easily even if the invisible patch hypothesis is impossible.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2012, 09:23 AM   #3314
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Why?

...This hypothesis doesn't necessarily require the reuse of existing threads. ...
Actually, according to the sources of the Benford Marino paper, it does.
ETA:
Quote:
the authors contacted the
president and owner of Without A Trace, Inc. (www.withoutatrace.com) in Chicago, IL,
Mr. Michael Ehrlich. Without A Trace has provided invisible mending services for over
20 years. Mr. Ehrlich’s response to Flury-Lemberg’s statement was that the modern-day,
time-saving technique for large repairs, called “Inweaving,” would indeed be invisible
from the surface but easily recognizable from the back as she claimed. However, the
technique used in 16th Century Europe, called “French Weaving,” is an altogether
different technique from Inweaving. French Weaving, now only done on small
imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side
“invisibility.” According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread
restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century
owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and
expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French
Weave for repairs.

Last edited by pakeha; 27th September 2012 at 09:26 AM. Reason: quotation added.
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 September 2012, 09:32 AM   #3315
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Here's the exact wording of the cited source:
Quote:
French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.
I think we can say with some confidence that the source used by Benford/Marino is quite specific about what is entailed by 'invisible' weaving.

It uses material from the existing fabric and as such I think we can say it would not affect the C14 dating.

Breakfast time?
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 September 2012, 09:40 AM   #3316
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Why?
The simplest answer is that no other posibility has been demonstrated thus far. A quick Google search yields a number of companies that do this technique, and they all say "We use threads/patches from the cloth we are repairing". No other technique has been described, and the specific technique (french re-weaving) is just that: a specific technique, one of several possible ones, which uses specific methods to accomplish specific goals. What Jabba is attempting to do is to make us, through verbose obfuscation, forget that what he's proposing is at best seriously flawed and at worst an attempt to use an unknown and unproven mechanism to cast doubt on expert analysis (something you simply don't get to do in science).

So asking why threads from the cloth have to be used is sort of like asking "Why is a football field 100 yards?" The answer is, that's how it's done. And while it's not a very satisfying answer, until someone demonstrates another technique it is a sufficient answer.
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 27th September 2012, 09:40 AM   #3317
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,162
Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2012, 09:47 AM   #3318
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
I simply went to the link cited in the Benford/Marino paper.
This one:
(www.withoutatrace.com)

What I quoted is from www.withoutatrace.com

Here it is again:
Quote:
French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.
The Benford/Marino paper stated specifically
Quote:
According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French Weave for repairs.

We've been over this before on this thread.
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 September 2012, 09:48 AM   #3319
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,543
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.
Deleted.
Resume 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 September 2012, 09:52 AM   #3320
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Is the source that you are talking about Ehrlich?. In the Benford/Marino paper he is quoted as saying that a French reweave is what produces a patch invisible from the front and back. I didn't see in that paper where he or anybody else claims that thread from the original cloth must be used as part of the process. I also did a little quick internet searching and didn't find a requirement that French reweaving use part of the original garment. Obviously it is generally much easier to do if one does that in that finding thread with a perfect match to garment to be repaired might be difficult, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible.
I hope my quotations cleared that up, davefoc.
Yes, The French re-weave specifically uses thread from the original cloth.
At least, according to the Benford/Marino source.
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
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 01:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.