|
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. |
26th September 2012, 08:57 AM | #3281 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
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. |
|
26th September 2012, 09:09 AM | #3282 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
26th September 2012, 09:24 AM | #3283 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
26th September 2012, 09:25 AM | #3284 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
26th September 2012, 02:16 PM | #3285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
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.
|
26th September 2012, 03:23 PM | #3286 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Getting Past the Experts
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 |
|
26th September 2012, 03:33 PM | #3287 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
INVISIBLE REWEAVING USES THE SAME FABRIC!!!!!!! THE SAME FABRIC IS THE SAME AGE!!!!!!
Jesus Christ. |
26th September 2012, 03:46 PM | #3288 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
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 |
|
26th September 2012, 06:53 PM | #3289 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
26th September 2012, 07:24 PM | #3290 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th September 2012, 09:26 PM | #3291 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
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 |
|
26th September 2012, 11:59 PM | #3292 |
Penultimate Amazing
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. |
27th September 2012, 02:14 AM | #3293 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
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: 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 |
|
27th September 2012, 03:26 AM | #3294 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Everything you say needs support, you've shown yourself to be unreliable.
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? Why is this a bad thing? Give the quality of STURP's work is this a bad thing? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. |
|
27th September 2012, 03:29 AM | #3295 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
27th September 2012, 03:53 AM | #3296 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
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. |
|
27th September 2012, 04:26 AM | #3297 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 04:31 AM | #3298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3296
Quote:
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? So, which of them was part of the conspiracy, then? The Cardinal or Dr. Gonella? Or both?
Quote:
Quote:
The phrase following the one cited by Pharaoh earlier says it all: |
Last edited by pakeha; 27th September 2012 at 04:36 AM. Reason: clarification, corrected quote-fu. Isn't editing fun? |
|
27th September 2012, 04:38 AM | #3299 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Indeed, the more you look at it the more stupid that theory becomes.
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. Well Jabba/Rick seems a little uncertain on the science-y bits. 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. |
|
27th September 2012, 04:39 AM | #3300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
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 |
27th September 2012, 05:01 AM | #3301 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
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. 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 |
|
27th September 2012, 05:12 AM | #3302 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
Be fair, Oh Pharaoh! Jabba did say he was This Benford?
Quote:
Breakfast time! |
27th September 2012, 05:36 AM | #3303 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 07:06 AM | #3304 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
27th September 2012, 07:37 AM | #3305 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th September 2012, 07:40 AM | #3306 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
27th September 2012, 07:42 AM | #3307 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
27th September 2012, 07:57 AM | #3308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 08:01 AM | #3309 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Help
|
__________________
"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 |
|
27th September 2012, 08:20 AM | #3310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
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. |
27th September 2012, 08:50 AM | #3311 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 08:57 AM | #3312 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
27th September 2012, 09:18 AM | #3313 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 09:23 AM | #3314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
27th September 2012, 09:32 AM | #3315 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Here's the exact wording of the cited source:
Quote:
It uses material from the existing fabric and as such I think we can say it would not affect the C14 dating. Breakfast time? |
27th September 2012, 09:40 AM | #3316 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
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. |
27th September 2012, 09:40 AM | #3317 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
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 |
|
27th September 2012, 09:47 AM | #3318 |
Penultimate Amazing
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:
Quote:
We've been over this before on this thread. |
27th September 2012, 09:48 AM | #3319 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
27th September 2012, 09:52 AM | #3320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|