IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 7th December 2012, 08:56 AM   #4361
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Because you apparently didn't read it the first time, Jabba, here's a link you really should read:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/...or%20Today.HTM

In particular, read the section titled "No Package Deals". In brief, in order for you to be right you must demonstrate the following to be true about the shroud:

Quote:
* Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
* Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
* Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
* Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
* Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
* Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
* No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed
You can't prove the first one. We've disproven it (C14 dating and the weave of the cloth). You can't prove the fourth one. Others have disproven it (the anatomical errors). You can't prove the third one. Others have disproven it (the fading of the image). You can't prove the rest, and haven't even tried.

ETA: Something to bear in mind, Jabba: Abelard was on YOUR side. He was a 13th century theologian, and as I recall fairly highly respected (I've been trying to find Sic et Non for a while now, so I've done a bit of research on him). YOUR OWN SIDE DISAGREES WITH YOUR METHODS. A MEDIEVAL MONK would find your methods insulting. You may want to think about that.

Last edited by Dinwar; 7th December 2012 at 08:58 AM.
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 7th December 2012, 09:52 AM   #4362
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.
Quality is infinitely more important than quality.

Quote:
- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…
Unfortunately, the universe doesn't conform to what you, I, or anybody else wants to be true. It just is as it is. Wish in one hand, s**t in the other and see which one fills up first.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 10:28 AM   #4363
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba


Does it really continue to elude you that you're in a Forum founded by a bloke who's spent the greater part of his life trying to make it as clear as possible to the Great Unwashed™ that there's no such ****** thing as magic?

Do you not realise that your 'arguments' amount to no more than a child's insistence that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real?


Friendly debate? You have to be kidding.

All you're doing now is insulting the intelligence of the people who have tried to set you straight and it's not only severely lacking in friendliness - it's outright contemptible.
__________________


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 7th December 2012, 10:43 AM   #4364
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
Since Jabba wants to play Courtroom Drama, let's just do this:

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

You state there is only one piece of evidence. That is all that is needed to discount the whole thing. If the DNA of the defendant doesn't match that of the perp found at the scene, then the defendant could not have been the perp, it doesn't matter how much other circumstantial crap you try to create.
__________________
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

Last edited by pgwenthold; 7th December 2012 at 10:45 AM.
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 7th December 2012, 10:59 AM   #4365
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Since Jabba wants to play Courtroom Drama, let's just do this:

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.


I think you're giving the defence attorney more credit than is due. The tag line "It ain't no joke, if you don't pay the note" fom Operation Repo is probably more appropriate to the standard of the case we've seen presented*.



* for values of '"presented" that include "hinted at being lined up to be considered for presentation any day week month year now."
__________________


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 7th December 2012, 12:09 PM   #4366
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just to point out that I have come to (or, am coming to) recognize just how second hand (or, even third hand) my evidence is…

- I came to the Randi forum trying to evaluate two of my opinions: 1) that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic, and 2) my model for effective debate works. I knew that I couldn’t really test my model here – unless I was extremely lucky – cause, I wouldn’t be able to fully install it here – but, I figured that I might be able to make it work anyway, or at least learn some valuable lessons while trying.
- I warned everyone in advance, that even were I able to fully install the model, developing a really effective debate would likely be quite tedious…

- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…

- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.

--- Jabba
Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents 14C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 7th December 2012 at 12:11 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:23 PM   #4367
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just to point out that I have come to (or, am coming to) recognize just how second hand (or, even third hand) my evidence is…
This is a good thing, it means you are at last learning to evaluate a source. You have a long way to go, don't turn back.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I came to the Randi forum trying to evaluate two of my opinions: 1) that the Shroud of Turin is probably authentic,
Which it isn't.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
and 2) my model for effective debate works.
Which it doesn't - at least not under these circumstances.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I knew that I couldn’t really test my model here – unless I was extremely lucky – cause, I wouldn’t be able to fully install it here – but, I figured that I might be able to make it work anyway, or at least learn some valuable lessons while trying.
I hope that you will have learned that your model doesn't have universal applicability; in particular that it doesn't apply to questions of fact, or to scientific investigations.

It may have a place in debates about matters of opinion, where effective argument can sway people from one side to another. But it will never, and should never, be used in debates about facts, because facts stand by themselves and are not dependent on whether one side can argue better than another. Thus, it's wholly inapplicable to this shroud discussion.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I warned everyone in advance, that even were I able to fully install the model, developing a really effective debate would likely be quite tedious…
Tedious and inapplicable, which is why everyone refused to allow you to use it here.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
That is incredibly disappointing, given the references and facts given to you in this thread, and the abject lack of any evidence to support the shroud being authentic. I suspect you have not understood as much of the evidence as you think you have.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.
This is nonsense. The carbon dating is an absolute fact, and all you have to put against it is feelings, wishes and half-remembered second hand anecdotes.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…
This is utterly baffling. The shroud being a fake has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of the Jesus story being true. You wishing the Jesus story to be true has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of it being true. If you want to have faith, go right ahead; nobody really cares whether you do or not. Facts don't change because you wish them to be true, every child learns this when they recognise that Santa and the tooth fairy are fun but fictional.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then hopefully, someone here will begin to think that I am telling the truth about my opinions and intentions – and, even that there might be some “magic” in the world.
Again, this is quite baffling. The shroud being a mediaeval fake has no bearing on your ability to tell the truth about your opinions or your intentions. As for there being 'magic' in the world - you do realise where you are posting? This is a sceptics' site, not a "I wish my woo is true" site. If magic and miracles and other non-existent stuff is what you want, post on a site for the credulous.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:35 PM   #4368
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, at this point, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, you guys have, indeed, weakened my case. Numbers are hard to come by, but probably I’ve gone from 90% to 80% -- something like that…
- Obviously, I’m not yet ready to concede. I remain at 80% for at least two broad reasons – I think that the carbon dating is your only 1st hand, credible evidence, and though my reading is almost all 2nd hand stuff and I can’t remember it very well, there is a lot of it piled up in the back of my head.
80%?
Bring on the rest of your evidence and let's see what you have that is so compelling.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Yes, washed down with Bloody Marys.
I'm in.
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 7th December 2012, 02:55 PM   #4369
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

- And then, I do WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I really don’t have any blind faith, but for a lot of reasons, I do believe that there is much more substance to this “crazy” Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye -- and the more I can believe it, the more solace I can get from it…
I will just focus on this point.

All that has been demonstrated is that the shroud is a medieval fake. It matters not a whit what you want to be true. It says nothing more than a medieval faker made the shroud and that is proven. It says nothing at all about the existence of god or jebus or anything else, just that this particular piece of fabric is a medieval fake.

The real question is, why is your faith so bound up in an obvious fake artifact?

If you accept that the shroud is fake would you abandon your religion? I would bet not.
__________________
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 7th December 2012, 04:19 PM   #4370
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:56 PM   #4371
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.
Amazing. Thank you...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:04 PM   #4372
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
With regards to the "magic" question, I don't see why anybody would need it. Think of all the folklore in the world. All the superstition. Now look at what you're doing right now - you're reading, in real-time, the words of someone who might be on the opposite side of the world to you, just as a hundred others are. Did any folklore from before the invention of the computer ever even dream that something that extraordinary might be possible? No, none of it has the scope.

Watch this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


That's a sculpture made by a Dutch artist and then sent via a 3-D fax machine and, with just the addition of a propeller, it can walk unaided. We live in a world where you can fax that to someone. And people say that we need to believe in magic. I'll tell you, I believe in something better than magic. I believe in reality.
So I'm guessing someone somewhere is working out how to use this 3-D fax/printer with porn.

Hey, a 3-D shroud should be a cake walk.
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 8th December 2012, 04:00 AM   #4373
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
More on the Zand Beest

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
dafydd 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 8th December 2012, 07:38 AM   #4374
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents 14C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?
A good summary but there's one point I'd nitpick: there *is" iron on the shroud in the form of iron (III) oxide, as hematite part of the red ochre pigment used to paint the image. This was shown by microscopical and chemical analyses.
__________________
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 8th December 2012, 07:47 AM   #4375
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
A good summary but there's one point I'd nitpick: there *is" iron on the shroud in the form of iron (III) oxide, as hematite part of the red ochre pigment used to paint the image. This was shown by microscopical and chemical analyses.
Thank you. I can only claim youth and inexperience mitigated by long years of faithful service...

I had iron on the brain when I meant to type "potassium".

Please don't make me re-read the whole post as penance...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:10 AM   #4376
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Thank you. I can only claim youth and inexperience mitigated by long years of faithful service...

I had iron on the brain when I meant to type "potassium".

Please don't make me re-read the whole post as penance...
No worries, have a muffin for your efforts it, was other than that one point, an excellent summary.
__________________
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 8th December 2012, 08:29 AM   #4377
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
No worries, have a muffin for your efforts it, was other than that one point, an excellent summary.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2ad0e1c8ec.png
TY Om ñom ñom ñom...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 06:02 AM   #4378
Multivac
Master Poster
 
Multivac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Rich:

Please do not think that I am being too harsh, or unreasonable, but really:

1. There is no blood on the cloth (no iron, no calcium...no blood chemicals...whatever it is, it isn't blood).

2. The not-blood is present in locations that do not correspond to the "wounds" depicted on the shroud, in type, location, or effect.

3. The not-blood has flow patterns, and application patterns, that do not correspond to the way blood flows (look at the directions of the "flows" in the hair and neck, for instance).

4. The not-blood applied to the cloth does not depict where, or how, blood would seep, or flow, from wounds in an hours-dead body that had been washed before not being "wrapped" in the cloth.

5. The purported "wounds" do not match the way any recognizable historic instrument of flaying would cause wounds.

6. The not-wounds appear on an anatomically inaccurate figural image of a "body" representationally stylized in the traditions of Byzantine art.

7. The cloth was never "wrapped" around the not-body represented in the image.

8. The cloth has no provenance earlier than 1353 (and was declared a fraud shortly after its appearance).

9. The cloth is not accurate to any of the "historical" details of the only sources that purport to describe its supposed use.

10. And, wait for it...
The cloth presents 14C dates that demonstrate it is a medieval artifact; dates independently arrived at by three different labs using three different techniques. No colorable explanation for how all three labs could have been wrong in the same way (not just wrong, but wrong in the same direction and to the same degree) has ever been offered.

...and with all of that, you are still "80% convinced" the medieval cloth with the non-miraculous image of a non-wounded non-body, non-stained with non-blood, is The True Shroud™?

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort had you simply started the thread, as I have suggested before, with the statement that there is, in fact, no evidence of any kind that will sway you from your determination that the cloth must be The True Shroud™.

(BTW, you might want to be careful referring to what is supposed to be a "miracle" as "magic". You will not win friends among the faithful...)

Are you, at last, done, here?
Yes, but apart from that, what makes you think the shroud is a fake?

With apologies to the Monty python team.
Multivac 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 11th December 2012, 09:43 AM   #4379
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
The Blood

- Just to let you know I’m still around.

- I have a book entitled “Archeological Chemistry – III,” published in 1984 by the American Chemical Society. One chapter, pp 447 – 476, is entitled “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin.” This chapter was written by Jumper, Adler, Jackson, Pellicori, Heller and Druzik. Pages 458 to 462 apparently refer to all of the work done by STURP regarding the “blood stains.” The following is the literature cited in that section. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any of these are on line…

6. Pellicori, S. F. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 1913-20.
7. Pellicori, S. F. ; Evans, M. S. Archaeology 1981, 34 , 34--43.
10. Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F.]. Biol. Photogr . Assoc. 1981, 49, 71-85.
11. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 2742--44.
12. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci.] . 1981, 14 , 81-103.
13. McCrone, W. C.; Skirius, C. Microscope 1980, 28, 105-14.
14. McCrone, W. C. Microscope 1980, 28 , 115-28.
15. Ibid., 1981, 29, 19-38.
16. Schwalbe, L. A.; Rogers, R. N. Anal. Chim. Acta 1982, 135, 3--49.
20. Weaver, K. F. National Geographic 1980, 157, 730-53.
21. Bucklin, R. In Leg. Med. Annu. 1981.
22. Bollone, Pierluigi Baima. Private commu nication. Also c.f. , Sindon, 30, December 1981.

- I could scan pages 458-462, but I assume that it isn’t legal (or proper?) to post all 5 pages. I’ll try to look up how much is proper to post, but I’d appreciate any tips you guys have regarding such things.
- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research, and I’ll try to summarize in the near future.

- I now know how to determine, on line, what Journals my library carries – that took awhile – and it carries some, if not most of those sited. As soon as possible, I’ll make the trip and see what specifically they have to offer.
- I have run into some interesting stuff regarding the “blood” and will hopefully be able to eventually provide a convincing argument that the stains probably (if not surely) are, indeed, blood.
- I understand that the stains being blood won’t mean a whole lot in itself, but it is the first “premise” in my syllogism.

--- 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 11th December 2012, 10:01 AM   #4380
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
It is a glimmer of hope that you admit that blood by itself proves nothing. I am also glad to see that you are beginning real research.
__________________
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 11th December 2012, 11:38 AM   #4381
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 989
If you have access try and watch the first episode of a new history TV series on BBC called "The Dark Ages: An Age of Light". It has some very interesting information on early christian art. The presenter points out that there is no description of Jesus in the Bible. As far as I am aware there is no physical description of Jesus in any of the non-canonical gospels either. There is no artistic representation of Jesus surviving that dates before the start of the 2nd Century A.D. The earliest representations of Jesus in art are of a beardless young man with curly hair carrying a magic staff to perform his miracles. A little like Harry Potter without his glasses.

The presenter argues that this is a representation of a hopeful and happy Christ, taken from the familiar (to members of classical civilization) representation of the god Apollo. Later when Christianity becomes the religion of the late Roman Empire a more majestic figure is required and Christ becomes depicted with the attributes of Jove or Zeus. I remember a John Romer documentary which argues the same as this show, that the new look for the newly powerful Jesus came from the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias.

The point being...

Even if the carbon dating was wrong (which Jabba hasn't shown)

Even if there is blood on the cloth (which Jabba hasn't shown)

The image could be of anybody because we just don't know what Jesus looked like! That it looks so much like the image that medieval worshipers had of their sacrificial being would make most fair minded and skeptical people see more evidence of a medieval fake than the real deal.
Parsman 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 11th December 2012, 02:52 PM   #4382
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by Parsman View Post
If you have access try and watch the first episode of a new history TV series on BBC called "The Dark Ages: An Age of Light". It has some very interesting information on early christian art. The presenter points out that there is no description of Jesus in the Bible. As far as I am aware there is no physical description of Jesus in any of the non-canonical gospels either. There is no artistic representation of Jesus surviving that dates before the start of the 2nd Century A.D. The earliest representations of Jesus in art are of a beardless young man with curly hair carrying a magic staff to perform his miracles. A little like Harry Potter without his glasses.

The presenter argues that this is a representation of a hopeful and happy Christ, taken from the familiar (to members of classical civilization) representation of the god Apollo. Later when Christianity becomes the religion of the late Roman Empire a more majestic figure is required and Christ becomes depicted with the attributes of Jove or Zeus. I remember a John Romer documentary which argues the same as this show, that the new look for the newly powerful Jesus came from the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias.

The point being...

Even if the carbon dating was wrong (which Jabba hasn't shown)

Even if there is blood on the cloth (which Jabba hasn't shown)

The image could be of anybody because we just don't know what Jesus looked like! That it looks so much like the image that medieval worshipers had of their sacrificial being would make most fair minded and skeptical people see more evidence of a medieval fake than the real deal.
Thank you for making that excellent point! I hadn't thought of that before regarding the Shroud of Turin; but you're absolutely right about the image of the bearded Jesus being essentially of medieval origin.
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 11th December 2012, 02:55 PM   #4383
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
Thank you for making that excellent point! I hadn't thought of that before regarding the Shroud of Turin; but you're absolutely right about the image of the bearded Jesus being essentially of medieval origin.
True. If Jesus did exist then he would have been an Aramaic Jew and bear not the slightest resemblance to the movie star Jesus of the Middle Ages.
dafydd 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 11th December 2012, 04:04 PM   #4384
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
...but I’d appreciate any tips you guys have regarding such things.
Summarize them in your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing something accurately, you don't actually understand it.

Quote:
- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research,
You appear easily impressed by anyone who agrees with you.

Quote:
- I understand that the stains being blood won’t mean a whole lot in itself, but it is the first “premise” in my syllogism.
I look forward to you addressing the other 7 points I raised, and the 10 points Slowvehicle raised. Because this really is just another of your "This is what I'm going to tell you" posts, sprinkled with your feelings about data and completely lacking any actual data.
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 11th December 2012, 05:16 PM   #4385
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research, and I’ll try to summarize in the near future...

I'm looking forward to that summarisation.
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 11th December 2012, 06:29 PM   #4386
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Smile

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just to let you know I’m still around.

- I have a book entitled “Archeological Chemistry – III,” published in 1984 by the American Chemical Society. One chapter, pp 447 – 476, is entitled “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin.” This chapter was written by Jumper, Adler, Jackson, Pellicori, Heller and Druzik. Pages 458 to 462 apparently refer to all of the work done by STURP regarding the “blood stains.” The following is the literature cited in that section. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any of these are on line…

6. Pellicori, S. F. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 1913-20.
7. Pellicori, S. F. ; Evans, M. S. Archaeology 1981, 34 , 34--43.
10. Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F.]. Biol. Photogr . Assoc. 1981, 49, 71-85.
11. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 2742--44.
12. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci.] . 1981, 14 , 81-103.
13. McCrone, W. C.; Skirius, C. Microscope 1980, 28, 105-14.
14. McCrone, W. C. Microscope 1980, 28 , 115-28.
15. Ibid., 1981, 29, 19-38.
16. Schwalbe, L. A.; Rogers, R. N. Anal. Chim. Acta 1982, 135, 3--49.
20. Weaver, K. F. National Geographic 1980, 157, 730-53.
21. Bucklin, R. In Leg. Med. Annu. 1981.
22. Bollone, Pierluigi Baima. Private commu nication. Also c.f. , Sindon, 30, December 1981.

- I could scan pages 458-462, but I assume that it isn’t legal (or proper?) to post all 5 pages. I’ll try to look up how much is proper to post, but I’d appreciate any tips you guys have regarding such things.
- As you would expect, I was impressed by their description of the research, and I’ll try to summarize in the near future.

- I now know how to determine, on line, what Journals my library carries – that took awhile – and it carries some, if not most of those sited. As soon as possible, I’ll make the trip and see what specifically they have to offer.
- I have run into some interesting stuff regarding the “blood” and will hopefully be able to eventually provide a convincing argument that the stains probably (if not surely) are, indeed, blood.
- I understand that the stains being blood won’t mean a whole lot in itself, but it is the first “premise” in my syllogism.

--- Jabba
Hi,
I've beem trying to obtain as many of these citations as I can on line through my university library. The ones I could find so far are surprisingly disappointing, in that they show very little actual data, and what they do show often doesn't appear to support their conclusions. Many of the objections to this work have already been presented here, and I agree with these objections. But I will try to hunt down more and present my own summary soon. Until then, here is my take so far:

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 I can' t find so far. The journals are either relatively obscure and/or the on line archives don't go back far enough. I haven't a clue what journal reference 21 is citing.

6 and 11 present relatively little actual data and the data that is shown for the Shroud doesn't really match the authentic blood controls as I see it. I'll explain this opinion in more detail very soon. In fact the authors are very cautious in their conclusions in 11 (a paper you previously cited a page or so back).

13 is a review article: it doesn't present any new data, it just discusses again the data already in other papers

20 is a popular magazine article, not a peer-reviewed presentation of actual scientific data

22 private communications don't count because they are impossible to inspect or evaluate. It is the same as "a little birdy told me."

So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.

Last edited by Giordano; 11th December 2012 at 06:31 PM.
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 11th December 2012, 07:07 PM   #4387
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
To be fair to #13, meta-analyses can be useful. They don't say anything new, but it's often useful to examine a question from a broader perspective than can be accomplished in a more typical article explaining one experiment.
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 12th December 2012, 01:41 AM   #4388
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Bibliography in sindonist work is almost always circular. Someone writes an article and everybody quotes someone who quotes someone who quotes the first one. (And not even accurately. The “rumourology”, you know). It is even possible that the first one quotes someone who quotes himself. Sometimes it can happen that the chain is broken. This happens when a handbook is quoted. Or an article published in a parish magazine or similar. It is not impossible to find a PDF document quoted even in a peer reviewed (sic) article. Well, sindonology is a “family” science.

But I find very interesting a Jabba’s comment.
“And while H&A felt convinced of the blood, they allowed that they couldn’t say proof positive because the “sticky tape” of their sample had been made “optically intractable” by an earlier test and they were unable to do the test that could have proven their conclusion.”
(5th December 2012, 04:42 PM #4346).

It is important because Applied Optics’ article is the first link of the chain of sindonist quotations. I suppose it is illegal to scan the entire article, but I think it is not a problem with only this paragraph.

Do it, please. I'm very interested.

Last edited by David Mo; 12th December 2012 at 01:44 AM. Reason: Ortography
David Mo 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 12th December 2012, 02:59 AM   #4389
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
...So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.
Thus far, all lines of evidence claims posted up by Jabba have fizzled out and it will be interesting to see if this one does as well.
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 12th December 2012, 03:27 AM   #4390
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
6. Pellicori, S. F. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 1913-20.
7. Pellicori, S. F. ; Evans, M. S. Archaeology 1981, 34 , 34--43.
10. Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F.]. Biol. Photogr . Assoc. 1981, 49, 71-85.
11. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 2742--44.
12. Heller, J. H. ; Adler, A. D. Can. Soc. Forensic Sci.] . 1981, 14 , 81-103.
13. McCrone, W. C.; Skirius, C. Microscope 1980, 28, 105-14.
14. McCrone, W. C. Microscope 1980, 28 , 115-28.
15. Ibid., 1981, 29, 19-38.
16. Schwalbe, L. A.; Rogers, R. N. Anal. Chim. Acta 1982, 135, 3--49.
20. Weaver, K. F. National Geographic 1980, 157, 730-53.
21. Bucklin, R. In Leg. Med. Annu. 1981.
22. Bollone, Pierluigi Baima. Private commu nication. Also c.f. , Sindon, 30, December 1981.
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Hi,
I've beem trying to obtain as many of these citations as I can on line through my university library. The ones I could find so far are surprisingly disappointing, in that they show very little actual data, and what they do show often doesn't appear to support their conclusions. Many of the objections to this work have already been presented here, and I agree with these objections. But I will try to hunt down more and present my own summary soon. Until then, here is my take so far:

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 I can' t find so far. The journals are either relatively obscure and/or the on line archives don't go back far enough. I haven't a clue what journal reference 21 is citing.

6 and 11 present relatively little actual data and the data that is shown for the Shroud doesn't really match the authentic blood controls as I see it. I'll explain this opinion in more detail very soon. In fact the authors are very cautious in their conclusions in 11 (a paper you previously cited a page or so back).

13 is a review article: it doesn't present any new data, it just discusses again the data already in other papers

20 is a popular magazine article, not a peer-reviewed presentation of actual scientific data

22 private communications don't count because they are impossible to inspect or evaluate. It is the same as "a little birdy told me."

So Jabba I am pleased you intend to look up and evaluate these papers yourself. But I think you will find that the strength of the evidence is weaker the closer you get to the actual source.
Most of these references have been covered before, e.g. Rogers, Heller, Adler, McCrone, a fact that Jabba knows well.
21 is the Legal Medical Annual, not generally available online except for some articles through PubMed. The article in question is "The Shroud of Turin: a pathologist's viewpoint" which appears to have been a unreviewed opinion piece.
__________________
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 12th December 2012, 09:56 AM   #4391
archspoiler
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19
I'm in.[/quote]

I have been drinking heavily since page 43. And I will continue to do so until this thread has died, been wrapped in linen, risen from the dead, and provided a far more interesting burial shroud for discussion than this one....
archspoiler 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 12th December 2012, 10:03 AM   #4392
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Most of these references have been covered before, e.g. Rogers, Heller, Adler, McCrone, a fact that Jabba knows well.
21 is the Legal Medical Annual, not generally available online except for some articles through PubMed. The article in question is "The Shroud of Turin: a pathologist's viewpoint" which appears to have been a unreviewed opinion piece.
FWIW, the local Universtiy Library is doing an interlibrary search...I may have a .PDF of the Bucklin article in the next couple of days.
I'll share.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 10:07 AM   #4393
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
FWIW, the local Universtiy Library is doing an interlibrary search...I may have a .PDF of the Bucklin article in the next couple of days.
I'll share.
Excellent work, thanks for that. One of us should start collating these references and the responses to them, given that Jabba and the shroudies don't seem to want to.
__________________
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 12th December 2012, 11:55 AM   #4394
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
This is all good, indeed.
Let's see just what the articles and papers turn up!
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 12th December 2012, 12:00 PM   #4395
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Bibliography in sindonist work is almost always circular. Someone writes an article and everybody quotes someone who quotes someone who quotes the first one. (And not even accurately. The “rumourology”, you know). It is even possible that the first one quotes someone who quotes himself. Sometimes it can happen that the chain is broken. This happens when a handbook is quoted. Or an article published in a parish magazine or similar. It is not impossible to find a PDF document quoted even in a peer reviewed (sic) article. Well, sindonology is a “family” science.

But I find very interesting a Jabba’s comment.
“And while H&A felt convinced of the blood, they allowed that they couldn’t say proof positive because the “sticky tape” of their sample had been made “optically intractable” by an earlier test and they were unable to do the test that could have proven their conclusion.”
(5th December 2012, 04:42 PM #4346).

It is important because Applied Optics’ article is the first link of the chain of sindonist quotations. I suppose it is illegal to scan the entire article, but I think it is not a problem with only this paragraph.

Do it, please. I'm very interested.
David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.


--- 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 12th December 2012, 02:22 PM   #4396
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by archspoiler View Post
I'm in.
I have been drinking heavily since page 43. And I will continue to do so until this thread has died, been wrapped in linen, risen from the dead, and provided a far more interesting burial shroud for discussion than this one....[/quote]

Well I hope you don't get cirrhosis before then but the omens are not good.
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 12th December 2012, 02:43 PM   #4397
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Excellent work, thanks for that. One of us should start collating these references and the responses to them, given that Jabba and the shroudies don't seem to want to.
The fact that we have to even consider such a thing as compiling a list of references for the oposition rather strongly demonstrates the vapidity of said oposition.

To put it another way: After twenty freaking years Jabba's so incompetant that WE have to do his research for him?!
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 12th December 2012, 05:02 PM   #4398
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Not just Jabba.
It seems the Shroudies in general are short on references or understanding the ones they quote.

Remember Dimitri Kouznetsov?
His research lives on in Shroudie websites.
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 13th December 2012, 12:11 AM   #4399
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
David,

-Here's the paragraph you were looking for.
We, therefore, peeled back the sticky tape from the glass slide and exposed the Shroud fibrils to, first, hydrazine vapor and then formic acid vapor. Irradiation with longwave UV then showed several red fluorescent spots indicative of the presence of a porphyrin species on the Shroud fibrils. We employed the vapor method as we had hoped to take a microspectrum of the con*verted material to establish that it was specifically protoporphyrin IX. Unfortunately, the sticky tape was severely etched by the formic acid treatment and be*came optically intractable. Thus we were unable to provide this absolute final confirmation of the identity of the blood area material.


--- Jabba
Thank you, Jabba.
David Mo 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 13th December 2012, 03:32 AM   #4400
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The fact that we have to even consider such a thing as compiling a list of references for the oposition rather strongly demonstrates the vapidity of said oposition.

To put it another way: After twenty freaking years Jabba's so incompetant that WE have to do his research for him?!
Yes. Jabba's already admitted he hasn't read most of the material he (repeatedly) cites as supporting his case, nor does he seem to plan to do any real research.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Not just Jabba.
It seems the Shroudies in general are short on references or understanding the ones they quote.
Meh, like most woo this is to be expected. They don't have real science to cite so they have to pad it out with dubious, unreviewed or downright fraudulent material to make it seem like there's something there or quote mine or "creatively interpret" actual material to support them. Rather like the climate change deniers and their attempts to create uncertainty.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Remember Dimitri Kouznetsov?
His research lives on in Shroudie websites.
Ah yes, even most of the creationists have abandoned that fraudster. Though the shroudies also cite Max Frei and his amazing pollen tapes too.
__________________
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

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 08:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.