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 18th October 2012, 08:52 AM   #3641
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/threads from grtr cloth

- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- 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 18th October 2012, 09:01 AM   #3642
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
Here endeth any remaining credibility the patch hypothesis ever had.
__________________
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 18th October 2012, 09:34 AM   #3643
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
The bottom line is that there are no patch, 14C dating stands.

Will you have the courage to admit so ?
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2012, 09:35 AM   #3644
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Here endeth any remaining credibility the patch hypothesis ever had.
You are missing a ye, a "lo and behold", "enhence" and similar old english sound words .
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2012, 10:11 AM   #3645
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba


You did not need any opinion from anyone named “Mr Ehrlich”. Nor did you need anything said, done, or not done, by Mme Flury-Lemberg.

Common sense (if not a scientific research education) should have told you that the most accurate and authoritative examination by far was probably that of the three C14 labs themselves. Each of which made clear that there was no sign of any such patch on any of their samples.
IanS 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 18th October 2012, 10:52 AM   #3646
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
I had a debate on the shroud with an old friend of mine, a Young Earth Christian.

When I explained to him that the shroud is an admitted forgery fabricated in the fourteenth century and that its age had been confirmed by carbon dating he had a predictable reply.

Originally Posted by Old Friend
The shroud's age would naturally be hard to accurately determine because it had been contaminated by soot.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't such contamination, if severe enough to throw off the carbon dating, make the shroud appear older than it's supposed age rather than younger?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat 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 18th October 2012, 11:54 AM   #3647
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
I had a debate on the shroud with an old friend of mine, a Young Earth Christian.

When I explained to him that the shroud is an admitted forgery fabricated in the fourteenth century and that its age had been confirmed by carbon dating he had a predictable reply.



Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't such contamination, if severe enough to throw off the carbon dating, make the shroud appear older than it's supposed age rather than younger?
If it is done with soot from a source depleted in 14C , "dead carbon", yes. Coal come to mind. But if it is done thru soot coming from a living wood, or recentely collected wood, like fire in a wooden building, no.

But it does not matter because the amount of soot to make the date move one way or the other , is so stageering that it is downright impossible to ignore while examinating a sample (remember all sample were examinated, and certainly cleaned before testing).
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2012, 12:41 PM   #3648
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
If it is done with soot from a source depleted in 14C , "dead carbon", yes. Coal come to mind. But if it is done thru soot coming from a living wood, or recentely collected wood, like fire in a wooden building, no.
Thank you, that is what I figured.

Originally Posted by Aepervius
But it does not matter because the amount of soot to make the date move one way or the other , is so stageering that it is downright impossible to ignore while examinating a sample (remember all sample were examinated, and certainly cleaned before testing).
I also brought this up. Still no rational explanation how the testers would fail to notice such heavy carbon contamination or why they might choose to ignore it.

Or how a heavily carbon contaminated shroud turns out to be younger than expected rather than older.

Or a dozen other rational questions that raises reasonable doubt over the authenticity of the shroud. Really, color me surprised.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat 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 18th October 2012, 02:27 PM   #3649
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!
Clearly, you are dissappointed not to get the result you desired.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.
Stll not the result you desired.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
Still not the result you desired.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.
I am sure he can find it, and I am sure that you have not provided a single quote from the horses mouth.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some,
No. You reserve the right to present more unfounded claims. At least try to be honest.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
"for now", or in other words, you will raise it again later, and demand we jump through the very same hopes.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.
They will not, and an argument by proxy is lame.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
I doubt if anyone cares about your eructations.
__________________
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 18th October 2012, 03:26 PM   #3650
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.
Which is what many people have been telling you all through this thread.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
Just address the flippin' carbon dating results. Nothing. Else. Matters.

Edited: And please, please, drop the daft notion that the scientific enquiry of dating the shroud can be done by some kind of debate or fake courtroom proceedings. Science doesn't work like that.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader

Last edited by Agatha; 18th October 2012 at 03:29 PM.
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 18th October 2012, 03:52 PM   #3651
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Wow, Jabba. Just...wow.

WE TOLD YOU that French re-weaving used the same fibers as the rest of the cloth. We provided enormous numbers of references. Yet you refused to believe it. Now you accept it, but not the implications. This is the hight of absurdity.
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 18th October 2012, 05:38 PM   #3652
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
I'm pleased that you accept the information from the experts. I'm a little disappointed that you are disappointed. I would hope that you (or I or anyone on this board) would be more interested in the facts and finding the truth than defending a position. I know that that's not how people work, but I wish it were. I don't like being proven wrong, but I'd prefer to correct my beliefs rather than continue to be wrong. I hope you are the same way.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2012, 06:59 PM   #3653
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Cartoon Rating/Implausible Reaving/Sour Grapes

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...


So did everyone else.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.


You don't say.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.


That's the trouble with expert witnesses, eh Jabba? They don't make faith-based conclusions.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.


I'd be amazed if this was a first time for the poor man.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.


I'll bet you don't.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.


Who gets to decide what counts as 'effective'?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba


A serious researcher would have been pleased to have learned something.
__________________


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 18th October 2012, 08:11 PM   #3654
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
This.

Thanks for actually calling, Jabba.
You realise you've just done more research than Marino and Benford?
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 18th October 2012, 10:18 PM   #3655
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
^
This.

Thanks for actually calling, Jabba.
You realise you've just done more research than Marino and Benford?
True. Nice work, Jabba.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2012, 11:38 PM   #3656
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
I’m waiting eagerly the Marino’s answer if it arrives someday. I bet a beer Marino finds an ad hoc explanation of what “actually Ehrlich said” or something else, but not rectifies. A vague reference to “other irrefutable evidences” is likely. The difference between Marino and Jabba is the first is a professional sindonist. And a professional sindonist never recognizes his argument is inconclusive. In ancient Spanish is said: “Sostenella y no enmendalla”. (Something as: “Hold up it and never correct”).

But I also bet another beer Jabba also finds an ad hoc issue for his sindonist beliefs. He is the ingenuous sindonist but failures to prove his faith never discourage a good sindonist. He will return to attack with news “evidences”.
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 19th October 2012, 12:15 AM   #3657
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
^
Possibly, Dave Mo, possibly.
But as they also say:
¡Que vengan!
or
Bring it on!

And while beer is a most excellent beverage, I think you'll find visits to the breakfast nook more in character here.
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 19th October 2012, 05:45 AM   #3658
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
In all honesty, Jabba just did something skeptical. He didn't accept what some people (that is, us) said about what other people (that is, experts) had to say on a topic. He went to the source. Unfortunately for Jabba, in this case said source confirmed what others in the forum have been saying for months.

It looks like Jabba is going to have to come up with another reason as to why the carbon-14 dating is "incorrect". So far we're ruled out contamination and invisible re-weaving. I don't know if there are any other alternatives.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain 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 19th October 2012, 05:54 AM   #3659
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Effective Debate

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
I'm pleased that you accept the information from the experts. I'm a little disappointed that you are disappointed. I would hope that you (or I or anyone on this board) would be more interested in the facts and finding the truth than defending a position. I know that that's not how people work, but I wish it were. I don't like being proven wrong, but I'd prefer to correct my beliefs rather than continue to be wrong. I hope you are the same way.

Ward
Ward,

- Thanks.
- I always want to win.
- I also want to believe in transcendence, the mystical, "God" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) and Jesus... I don't think that reality is the deterministic (or even, uncertain) machine that science and logic seems to demand -- and, as I find evidence against that belief, I will be disappointed...
- As you acknowledge, that's how we humans work.

- And then, from my website at http://messiahornot.com/:
16. But then, I must also accept that I am not now (nor have I ever been) impartial in regard to this issue -- and that consequently, I cannot fully trust my own conclusions and suspicions...
17. And now, being as old as I am, I suspect that this issue could really be important…
18. And then, can I really “entrust my life to Jesus” (a real neurological event) – which is surely what Jesus wanted us to do, and what would probably do me all sorts of good – if I’m not pretty darn sure that he was who he said he was? I doubt it.
19.What I need, therefore, is access to an effective presentation of both sides of this story.
20. Will my current suspicions and conclusions hold up in face of the logic and evidence of dedicated skeptics?
21. That's the question.


- Thanks, again.

--- 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 19th October 2012, 05:58 AM   #3660
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
It looks like Jabba is going to have to come up with another reason as to why the carbon-14 dating is "incorrect". So far we're ruled out contamination and invisible re-weaving. I don't know if there are any other alternatives.
Roman Catholic conspiracy, which is where this has been heading since the very beginning.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2012, 06:00 AM   #3661
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Effective Debate

- Continuing: I also think that there is much more to the Jesus concept/story than is first seen by the rational eye... That's what I try to show in that website.
--- 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 19th October 2012, 06:04 AM   #3662
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Re-weave/Getting Past the Experts/threads from grtr cloth

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
^
This.

Thanks for actually calling, Jabba.
You realise you've just done more research than Marino and Benford?
Pakeha,
- Thanks.
--- 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 19th October 2012, 06:05 AM   #3663
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Ward,

- Thanks.
- I always want to win.


And this is why you fail.

An honest investigator wishes for the truth to prevail.
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 06:07 AM   #3664
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Mindess Preachystuff

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Continuing: I also think that there is much more to the Jesus concept/story than is first seen by the rational eye... That's what I try to show in that website.
--- Jabba


Please take your faith-based sermonising to a more appropriate venue.
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 06:11 AM   #3665
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post


20. Will my current suspicions and conclusions hold up in face of the logic and evidence of dedicated skeptics?


It's not dedicated skeptics that you're up against, Jabba, it's fact-based reality.

You never had a chance.
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 06:18 AM   #3666
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
- Rats!

- Mr Ehrlich said that the really "invisible" re-weaving, the French Re-weaving, would use only threads from the main cloth...
- "Inweaving," which would not be "invisible," could use new material.

- He was in a hurry, and I didn't specifically ask Pakeha's question, but sure sounds like Ehrlich would say that experts would have recognized the patch if it had used new material.
- He was happy to have me quote him, and I told him that it would be on the Randi forum, but didn't get a chance to give him the Internet address.

- I reserve the right to come back and add new, "exculpatory," evidence if I should find some, but for now at least, I concede this round to you guys, and will drop my invisible re-weave explanation possibility.
- I will, however, tell Joe Marino, and the guys on Dan Porter's blog what Ehrlich said, and see if anyone has an effective comeback.

- Raspberries!!!

--- Jabba
Jabba:

Please do not take this as a personal attack, but the hilited area demonstrates a fundamental problem of which you should make yourself aware. You have spoken of "bias" before, claiming that you are no more biased that the rest of us--but consider your statement. Mmme. F-L adamantly states that there is no "patch"; that she would not have missed one if one were there. The recent restoration did not see, find, or detect a patch. Mr. Erlich pointed out to you that a patch would not be "invisible"...

...and yet, instead of accepting the fact that all available data support the idea that the cloth is a medieval artifact, you are "reserving the right" to come up with "exculpatory evidence"...which is not how science is done.

You start with a conclusion: The 14C dates must be wrong. Every piece of information you encounter is filtered through that presupposition. Never mind that the 14C dates are reliable, and consistent; never mind that no researcher who has examined the cloth in person has found the slightest evidence of a "patch" (not to mention a patch that would conveniently alter the apparent date to precisely the same degree in three independent labs), never mind that experts have told you that "invisible" reweaving is actually perfectly visible to the naked eye. Despite all evidence, you are committed to your conclusion.

What you should do is start with the evidence. There is a cloth. The cloth has been carbon-dated by three independent labs. The carbon dating indicates that the cloth is a medieval artifact. No textile expert who has examined the actual cloth has provided the least hint that there is reason to distrust the 14C dates. With that in hand, you can then reach a conclusion: the cloth is a medieval artifact.

Do you see, and understand, the difference? Instead of trying to prove that the experts are incompetent, or in cahoots, spend your energy determining what it means that the cloth, in fact, dates from the late-13th to mid-14th centuries.

Work with what is there, not with what you wish were there.

(BTW, good job on following through on Erlich--now apply what you have learned.)
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 19th October 2012, 06:36 AM   #3667
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Irradiation

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
In all honesty, Jabba just did something skeptical. He didn't accept what some people (that is, us) said about what other people (that is, experts) had to say on a topic. He went to the source. Unfortunately for Jabba, in this case said source confirmed what others in the forum have been saying for months.

It looks like Jabba is going to have to come up with another reason as to why the carbon-14 dating is "incorrect". So far we're ruled out contamination and invisible re-weaving. I don't know if there are any other alternatives.
Blue,

- For the moment, at least, invisible re-weave and contamination seem to be ruled out... (I hardly ever give up entirely. But then, what's important here (to me) is the effect that our confrontation is having upon a theoretical neutral audience -- not on whether or not one of us concedes.)

- Unless you guys have another preference as to the next sub-etc-issue for discussion, I'll next look into the alternative of some sort of irradiation or scorch causing the 14th century dating.
- Again, this is what I mean by "tedious" -- but, in my opinion, it is also the only way to actually get somewhere in serious debate.
- If you guys think you have a better smoking gun against Shroud authenticity than "there appears to be no way to explain a 1300 year discrepancy in the carbon dating," I should probably take on your "better" nominee first.

--- 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

Last edited by Jabba; 19th October 2012 at 06:37 AM.
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 19th October 2012, 06:54 AM   #3668
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Blue,

- For the moment, at least, invisible re-weave and contamination seem to be ruled out... (I hardly ever give up entirely. But then, what's important here (to me) is the effect that our confrontation is having upon a theoretical neutral audience -- not on whether or not one of us concedes.)


What an abject failure is your presentation here.

Not only does your case fail abysmally in terms of the facts of the matter, it also fails even more dramatically in that it displays itself to have never had any intention of succeeding on the basis of evidence.

I probably should add a third measure of failure - your total inability to present a cogent and rational argument regardless of what the evidence might say.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unless you guys have another preference as to the next sub-etc-issue for discussion, I'll next look into the alternative of some sort of irradiation or scorch causing the 14th century dating.


Why not just cut to the chase and say "Goddidit!"? It's just as (un)likely, but at least it has the advantage of displaying a little bit of (albeit misguided) integrity.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Again, this is what I mean by "tedious" -- but, in my opinion, it is also the only way to actually get somewhere in serious debate.


It's not tedious; it's assinine.

And the only place your 'debate' is going is down, as in 'gurgler'.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If you guys think you have a better smoking gun against Shroud authenticity than "there appears to be no way to explain a 1300 year discrepancy in the carbon dating," I should probably take on your "better" nominee first.

--- Jabba



You should probably take on the slugs attacking your raspberry canes, but of course you won't.
Slugs: 1

Jabba: nil
NAGL
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 06:58 AM   #3669
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Effective Debate

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Jabba:

...What you should do is start with the evidence. There is a cloth. The cloth has been carbon-dated by three independent labs. The carbon dating indicates that the cloth is a medieval artifact. No textile expert who has examined the actual cloth has provided the least hint that there is reason to distrust the 14C dates. With that in hand, you can then reach a conclusion: the cloth is a medieval artifact...
Slowmover (not meant as an insult, just think it's a "cooler" name, but I'll stick with the "Slowvehicle" if you prefer.),
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date. I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far.
--- 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 19th October 2012, 07:10 AM   #3670
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Coming Soon!!! Bluuuuurd!

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowmover (not meant as an insult, just think it's a "cooler" name, but I'll stick with the "Slowvehicle" if you prefer.),


I wish it was my place to say "How dare you?"


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date.


Fortunately for us all, the opinions of those who reject evidence out-of-hand in favour of superstitious wishful thinking are as easily discarded as childood beliefs in Tooth Bunnies and Easter Fairies.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far.
--- Jabba


Again, fortunately, what you perceive as evidence isn't anything of the sort.

It is, however, comedy gold. Moreover, it's the best way of winning converts to atheism short of forcing people to read a DOC thread.

Keep up the good work!
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 07:11 AM   #3671
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowmover (not meant as an insult, just think it's a "cooler" name, but I'll stick with the "Slowvehicle" if you prefer.),
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date. I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far.
--- Jabba
I have one sone who, like me, is atheist, and another who is quite Christian. Neither of them can stomach the intentional deception you continue to display here. There are ways to believe while maintaining your honesty and your morals. You have chosen to believe another way, a way that requires the twisting of facts, the denial of reality, and the pretense of rationality.

As my Christian son would say: "If you want to believe, then believe, but if your belief requires misrepresentation, then you believe in a lying God."

I am proud of both sons and may invite both of them to read this thread, though I doubt either could stomach much of it.
__________________
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 19th October 2012, 07:22 AM   #3672
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Moreover, it's the best way of winning converts to atheism short of forcing people to read a DOC thread.

Keep up the good work!
Agreed. Jabba's effect on his 'theoretical neutral audience' will be to stampede them away from his position.
Mashuna is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2012, 07:28 AM   #3673
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
As my Christian son would say: "If you want to believe, then believe, but if your belief requires misrepresentation, then you believe in a lying God."

I am proud of both sons and may invite both of them to read this thread, though I doubt either could stomach much of it.


Props to you and yours.

One of my bestest friends here at JREF is an honest Christian and I respect him and his ilk, both in the interworld and IRL, at least as much as my heathen friends. Often quite a bit more.

Those who choose wilful ignorance and outright lying in defence of their weak faith I despise.
__________________


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 19th October 2012, 07:55 AM   #3674
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
<snip>
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date. I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far.
--- Jabba
And yet again you continue posting this rubbish.
The radiocarbon dating is one element of the evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake. The sum of the individual elements is greater than anyone of them individually and leads only to one reasonable conclusion; the shroud is a medieval fake.
To summarise:
The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radiocarbon), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:
  • Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure
  • Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)
  • Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
  • Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
  • Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
  • Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
  • Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
  • Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355
  • Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue

Like your fellow believers you have failed to contradict any one of these points, let alone their sum.
__________________
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 19th October 2012, 07:59 AM   #3675
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Summary of the evidence against the shroud's authenticity.

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:

m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:

n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue
__________________
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 19th October 2012, 08:15 AM   #3676
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
Jabba, if there's no patch and there's no problem with the 14C dating then all other evidence is moot.

If the material of the shroud was made in the 14th century then it cannot possibly be the burial shroud of a man who died in the 1st century.

If you think otherwise then you are a lost cause so far as logic and reason go.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2012, 09:08 AM   #3677
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
Slowmover (not meant as an insult, just think it's a "cooler" name, but I'll stick with the "Slowvehicle" if you prefer.),
-The result of the carbon dating is only one piece in a whole pile of evidence -- a piece that, in my opinion, is greatly outweighed by the evidence for a much earlier date. I've presented very little of what I perceive as evidence for a much earlier date because the carbon dating (the best evidence against Shroud authenticity) has been the preferred subject in our debate so far.
--- Jabba
Rich:

You have been tap-dancing around the "patch" solution to the 14C dates. You have made dark suggestions of "other evidence" that "greatly outweighs" the 14C dates. Well, now is the time to present your "other evidence". Not the time to tell me that you have other evidence. Not the time to explain how you are going to set up "rules" about how you are going to present other evidence. Not the time to explain that your "evidence" is the fact that you need the cloth to be real. Not the time to negotiate about which points you will "concede".

Now is the time to present your best argument. If you are going to claim a vast, lengthy, international and ecumenical conspiracy, now is the time. If you are going to claim a miracle, now is the time.

The cloth has been correctly dated. Three independent labs confirm the date. Any "new evidence" you present will have to overcome that hurdle, first. No sense talking about any other evidence, any other theories, any other remote possibilities. Since the cloth is a medieval artifact, it cannot be the Authentic Shroud™.

Now, if what you are going to say is that you believe in the cloth despite all evidence, just say so and have done with it.

I don't mean to seem unkind, or unfriendly--but I taught high school too many years to care if you like me because I will not coddle you.

Please consider cutting right to the chase, and presenting your best evidence, right up front.

ETA: PS: you have a PM.

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 19th October 2012 at 09:37 AM.
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 19th October 2012, 09:37 AM   #3678
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
I wish it was my place to say "How dare you?"





Fortunately for us all, the opinions of those who reject evidence out-of-hand in favour of superstitious wishful thinking are as easily discarded as childood beliefs in Tooth Bunnies and Easter Fairies.





Again, fortunately, what you perceive as evidence isn't anything of the sort.

It is, however, comedy gold. Moreover, it's the best way of winning converts to atheism short of forcing people to read a DOC thread.

Keep up the good work!
There are international agreements against that sort of thing.
tsig 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 19th October 2012, 09:51 AM   #3679
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 Garrette View Post
I have one sone who, like me, is atheist, and another who is quite Christian. Neither of them can stomach the intentional deception you continue to display here. There are ways to believe while maintaining your honesty and your morals. You have chosen to believe another way, a way that requires the twisting of facts, the denial of reality, and the pretense of rationality.

As my Christian son would say: "If you want to believe, then believe, but if your belief requires misrepresentation, then you believe in a lying God."

I am proud of both sons and may invite both of them to read this thread, though I doubt either could stomach much of it.
GoodONya, Dad!
__________________
"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 19th October 2012, 12:52 PM   #3680
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Unless you guys have another preference as to the next sub-etc-issue for discussion, I'll next look into the alternative of some sort of irradiation or scorch causing the 14th century dating. ...
What?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

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 02:46 AM.
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.