|
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. |
7th December 2012, 08:56 AM | #4361 |
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:
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. |
7th December 2012, 09:52 AM | #4362 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
7th December 2012, 10:28 AM | #4363 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
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 |
|
7th December 2012, 10:43 AM | #4364 |
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 |
|
7th December 2012, 10:59 AM | #4365 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
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 |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
7th December 2012, 12:09 PM | #4366 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
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 |
|
7th December 2012, 01:23 PM | #4367 |
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
|
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.
Which it isn't. Which it doesn't - at least not under these circumstances. 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. Tedious and inapplicable, which is why everyone refused to allow you to use it here. 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. 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. 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. 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 |
|
7th December 2012, 01:35 PM | #4368 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
7th December 2012, 02:55 PM | #4369 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
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... |
|
7th December 2012, 04:19 PM | #4370 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
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:
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. |
|||
7th December 2012, 06:56 PM | #4371 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
7th December 2012, 07:04 PM | #4372 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
8th December 2012, 04:00 AM | #4373 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
More on the Zand Beest
|
|||
8th December 2012, 07:38 AM | #4374 |
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. |
|
8th December 2012, 07:47 AM | #4375 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th December 2012, 08:10 AM | #4376 |
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. |
|
8th December 2012, 08:29 AM | #4377 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
11th December 2012, 06:02 AM | #4378 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,121
|
|
11th December 2012, 09:43 AM | #4379 |
Philosopher
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 |
|
11th December 2012, 10:01 AM | #4380 |
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. |
|
11th December 2012, 11:38 AM | #4381 |
Muse
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. |
11th December 2012, 02:52 PM | #4382 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
|
|
11th December 2012, 02:55 PM | #4383 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th December 2012, 04:04 PM | #4384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th December 2012, 05:16 PM | #4385 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
11th December 2012, 06:29 PM | #4386 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
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. |
11th December 2012, 07:07 PM | #4387 |
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.
|
12th December 2012, 01:41 AM | #4388 |
Philosopher
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. |
12th December 2012, 02:59 AM | #4389 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
12th December 2012, 03:27 AM | #4390 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
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. |
|
12th December 2012, 09:56 AM | #4391 |
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.... |
12th December 2012, 10:03 AM | #4392 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th December 2012, 10:07 AM | #4393 |
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. |
|
12th December 2012, 11:55 AM | #4394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
This is all good, indeed.
Let's see just what the articles and papers turn up! |
12th December 2012, 12:00 PM | #4395 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
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 |
|
12th December 2012, 02:22 PM | #4396 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
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. |
12th December 2012, 02:43 PM | #4397 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
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?! |
12th December 2012, 05:02 PM | #4398 |
Penultimate Amazing
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. |
13th December 2012, 12:11 AM | #4399 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
13th December 2012, 03:32 AM | #4400 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
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.
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. 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|