|
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. |
19th October 2012, 02:30 PM | #3681 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
We're getting close to the "burst of resurrection energy" time.
Quote:
http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/199013/ |
19th October 2012, 02:58 PM | #3682 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
19th October 2012, 04:12 PM | #3683 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
|
__________________
~~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 |
|
19th October 2012, 04:39 PM | #3684 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
What next?
- Slowvehicle has recommended that I now present my perceived evidence for Shroud authenticity. That's what I'll do unless I get another (serious) suggestion or two.
--- 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 |
|
19th October 2012, 04:47 PM | #3685 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
19th October 2012, 04:59 PM | #3686 |
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
|
*sigh*
Don't play to the crowd. As I said before, don't explain how you're going to show it; don't talk about sets of "rules" and interlocking sub-threads; whatever you think you have, now is the time to just lay it on the table. It's "go" time--if you have it, show it. Dance like you don't need the money... |
__________________
"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 |
|
19th October 2012, 06:30 PM | #3687 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
Now? As far as I know Jabba has been participating since page 1 of this thread. That ship has already sailed, Slowvehicle.
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
19th October 2012, 07:04 PM | #3688 |
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 |
|
19th October 2012, 07:58 PM | #3689 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
We've asked innumerable serious questions and given you even more suggestions. I'm sorry if you object to it, but suggesting you go back and learn the basics of the fields you're discussing IS a serious suggestion. You demonstrably don't know multiple fields you're arguing with people over, and it would behoove you to actually get a grasp of the basics. Radiometric dating isn't linear, for example, and French Reweaving uses threads from the same cloth--both of which you not only didn't know, but flagrantly ignored.
Quote:
|
19th October 2012, 10:59 PM | #3690 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Great, Jabba.
Why not post them up one at a time, so we can discuss each one of them thoroughly? Don't forget to include links to your direct sources. Please don't route us via other websites, but link to the actual source of information. Strange. I read all those 'proofs' and it adds up to some sort of 'photographic' or camera oscura experiment, touched up with paint and/or blood. Whew. So they're suggesting the image was 'formed from the 'underside of the fabric, the which was covered by the holland cloth backing? That would imply the force that created the image permeated the cloth to form the image on the visible side, right? In that case the colouring would be seen throught the entire thickness of the cloth. I thought the coloured parts of the image were only a few microns deep? So the 'radiated from the wrapped body' idea must be false, correct me if I'm wrong. |
20th October 2012, 01:16 AM | #3691 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th October 2012, 10:55 AM | #3692 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
At the risk of appearing stupid, I need to ask a question. I searched through this thread and read a lot of previous posts but I cannot find any cites referring to a refutation of Ray Rogers' 2005 claim that part of the carbon-dated sample was dyed cotton. I was under the impression this was verified by a lab (maybe in Los Alamos?)
Be easy on me -- I have not studied this very much or even very recently. |
20th October 2012, 11:26 AM | #3693 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Hi, Ampulla of Vater!
This thread is so long and complex that it's no wonder you may have missed that. Try using cotton as your search word. |
20th October 2012, 11:50 AM | #3694 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
20th October 2012, 12:05 PM | #3695 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
The issue is that there are two ways to attach a cotton patch: first, you can do it via reweaving (which is obvious upon examination of the patched cloth), and second, you can attach the threads themselves together (which doesn't work with plant fibers, as they lack the necessary oils). So the only plausible way to do it would be instantly seen.
|
20th October 2012, 02:04 PM | #3696 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
ETA: Never mind, I am an idiot.
|
20th October 2012, 02:38 PM | #3697 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
20th October 2012, 03:11 PM | #3698 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
It was scientifically stupid to take all the samples from the same area. It appears this was a deviation from the originally agreed-upon protocol. It is too bad they won't allow it to be redone, with samples from different areas. At this point, it is merely a piece of art so why not allow more sampling to take place to put the issue at rest once and for all?
I suppose it is in their best interest to keep alive whatever debate remains. |
20th October 2012, 03:27 PM | #3699 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
The RCC insisted, and in any event it matters not where the samples were taken.
At the behest of the bishops. Did they have a vested interest? Surely not? And redone, and redone and redone, until there is no shroud left, just the same old samples in the lab, yielding the same results of a medieval forgery. Because the bleevers will repeat their claims until there is no shroud left, and once that happens, it becomes a fairy shroud, of which there is nothing left to test. Evanescant, it will live on as a ghost of what once was a valuable artifact of the past, ready and willing to trap the gullible. Ah, whose interest would that be? |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th October 2012, 03:49 PM | #3700 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Not sure what you deleted. I apologize if my post came off as abrupt--I intended it as more of a summary, is all.
Quote:
Here's the thing: sampling protocols are ALWAYS fluid. I've had drillers flat-out refuse to take samples in the agreed-upon spot (justifiably, as there was a gas line running WAY too close to the site). I've also hit refusal too soon (ie, the drill won't go any further) and we've had to move the sample location. Moving the sample site is something that happens universally in anything that samples anything. As far as C14 samples go? This is the single best-chosen and best-document C14 sample EVER TAKEN. Period. Bar none. I've taken C14 samples before, and our criteria was "any charcoal" or "somewhere in that lower unit". Those were verbatum my instructions. Documentation was my field notes. That may not be the perception of how science works, but that's what we on the ground do. Unless someone can present a scientific reason for this particular place being an inapropriate site, where it was sampled doesn't matter. That's the way sampling is done--and I'm saying this as someone who's put his time in doing sampling.
Quote:
Quote:
|
20th October 2012, 05:10 PM | #3701 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
There is no basis for thinking that there is any problem with taking the samples all from one area. Why shouldn't they?
Remember, the whole "patch" thing is a complete red-herring. There is absolutely no reason to think there is a patch in that area in any way, shape, or form, invisible or otherwise. No one ever ever contemplated the possibility of a patch there until the results came back affirming it was a forgery, and for good reason: there is nothing to suggest a patch was ever put there. But the results come back against authenticity, then everyone is complaining about the selection of the material? That's not how it works. So, aside from the possibility that there was an invisible _and secret_ (remember, not only did they patch it, but they didn't tell anyone that they patched this insignificant corner of the shroud, which is remarkable since they put patches all over the bloody thing without trying to hide it at all) patch, why does it matter whether they took all the samples from the same spot or not? |
__________________
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 |
|
21st October 2012, 12:59 AM | #3702 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
This thread is a gold mine of information about the shroud.
Just be creative with your search words and you'll end up finding quotations from and links to just about everything on the subject. As Dinwar ably pointed out, it's important to keep in mind the shroud was known to be a 'mere' work of art at the time it first appeared as a money-spinner in the 14th century. The Vatican paid for not one but three C14 dating procedures on the TS. The results are in, yet pro-authenticity advocates still hang in there. They can't give up. Dinwar, your post reminded me that we're lucky enough to have the opinions of someone who works with C14 dating and sample taking. So. Are we officially entering the Twilight Zone of shroud authenticity ideas, then? |
21st October 2012, 05:41 AM | #3703 |
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 |
|
21st October 2012, 06:47 AM | #3704 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
No, it wasn't your post at all. I asked a question but the answer was right in front of me. I realized it right at the time I hit 'submit' and wanted to delete the post. Next time I will just edit and write <delete>
This is quite an assertion. Why is it the "single best-chosen sample EVER TAKEN?" Obviously I disagree because I believe they should have stuck to the originally agreed-upon plan of 3 different areas. If it was necessary to scale back, then at least they should have done 2. My point is the criteria in this case was not "any" or "somewhere" but rather areas specifically discussed and agreed-upon ahead of time. It changed at the time of sampling, which I agree can be due to unforeseen circumstances, but the decision to reduce it to one area was unfortunate. Then why do you suppose they originally chose 3 different areas? Surely there must have been some reason separate areas were thought to be important. It is because of odds. Had the samples been taken from separate sites, people like Jabba, and Marino-Benford wouldn't get any traction with their assertions. |
21st October 2012, 07:05 AM | #3705 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
OTOH, "people like Jabba" have been shown to be completely ignorant regarding anything to do with 14C dating, or even science (read the thread, he spends 90% of the time talking about how we need to organize the discussion to talk about data). Why in the blazes should anyone worry about doing things to accommodate the ignorant? As Dinwar points out, it doesn't matter, because folks like that are so embedded to authenticity that they will just invent some other loopy idea.
The only reason they resort to the "invisible patch" nonsense is because that is all they have. It's baseless, and no one who is serious about it takes it seriously. |
__________________
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 |
|
21st October 2012, 07:14 AM | #3706 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Nah. I've yet to set up a poll and I'm saving myself for the thread I love.
I beg to differ, Ampulla because I'm convinced the pro-authenticity proponents would have seized on some other objection. Have you ever read the Pray Manuscript arguments in favour of the TS's authenticity? |
21st October 2012, 08:19 AM | #3707 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
The agreement to run the C14 tests at all, took ten years of meetings. The reason it took so long is that the majority of participants at those meetings were the religious officials and members of STURP who continuously tried to persuade the C14 scientists to perform much simpler and less invasive tests than the scientists were ideally requesting. It was the religious officials, and particularly the Vatican and the Cardinal of Turin, who eventually refused to allow more than one 7cm strip to be cut from the shroud, and who refused to allow more than three C14 labs which they themselves chose. It was the C14 scientists who had long explained why 6 or 7 labs and several different shroud samples would be statistically safer in the sense of refuting any subsequent claims that there may be any doubt about the resulting dates. However, the religious officials did not want that level of statistical certainty in the final dates. As it turned out, the three C14 labs did not need more than that single 7cm strip of shroud, because the agreement between them turned out to be so close that they were able to satisfy the required statistical standards without any further testing. But, however the tests were done, and no matter how many different samples were taken, you could never stop religious fanatics like STURP and Luigi Gonella from raising any number of fraudulent objections … such as claiming that an invisible patch might have been present, or that the C14 content of the shroud could have been divinely altered by some sub-atomic reaction resulting from Jesus levitating away from planet Earth! However, back in the real world, the fact of the matter is that in over 20 years, no independent scientists have ever published any criticism of the C14 paper. As far as criticism of the Rogers paper is concerned – there is no need for any C14 or other relevant scientists to waste their time publishing any criticism of that paper. Because (a)it is in an extremely obscure journal where few serious scientists would ever bother to take any notice of it, (b)it has not been supported by any independent scientists in any more well-known journals, (c)it does not address the C14 tests in any way at all, (d)it only offers speculation about what Rogers thought might be the reason for what he thought he could see as colour changes in a few microscopically small threads, (e)there was no corroboration that the threads ever came from any part of the C14 samples anyway. IOW – the Rogers paper is so weak, and with no support from any independent scientists, and so irrelevant to the C14 dates, that it would be giving it far more credit than it was ever due if the C14 scientists got dragged into a publishing battle with known religious shroud fanatics like Ray Rogers. |
21st October 2012, 12:01 PM | #3708 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Appreciation
- Ampulla,
- I assume that your educated guess is that the Shroud is a forgery, but I wanted to let you know that I do appreciate your efforts to "get to the bottom" of this... - I have some things to say on my behalf, but don't hold your breath -- I'm notoriously slow. - But also, I'll be back. --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
21st October 2012, 12:14 PM | #3709 |
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16,711
|
Why not say whatever you want to say in the post you just made? This is not twitter, you aren't character-limited.
It's really frustrating that you write a post telling us what you will do in the future instead of just doing it. The time you waste on telling people you are going to post something could be saved if you just posted whatever it was. I don't suppose what you were going to say was any refutation of the carbon dating results, was it? |
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader |
|
21st October 2012, 12:23 PM | #3710 |
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
|
Promises, promises.
This has been said before, and I repeat it here very much in the spirit of encouragement--you say you have been studying the cloth for 20 years or more, if I recall correctly. Why do you not have these arguments marshaled? If I may make a suggestion, go back through this thread and collect all of your arguments: the good, the bad, the wishful thinking...and make a file of them Keep them in order, with references, so that next time the issue comes up, in whatever venue, you have everything at your fingertips. When you do present your next argument, please remember that you have not explained away the 14C dates. Whatever other argument you plan to advance, if it does not address the fact that the cloth is a medieval artifact, the argument is moot from the start. -If you want to claim that a first-century image was somehow miraculously transferred onto a medieval cloth, go for it--but please do not expect anyone to agree to concede that dating. -If you want to claim that a medieval cloth was somehow miraculously present in the first century, feel free--but if you were going to argue "miracle" from the word "go", why bother smearing McCrone, and Mmme. F-L? I am eager to see what you have to present. |
__________________
"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 |
|
21st October 2012, 01:52 PM | #3711 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
|
STURP or Whatever, the Musical: “It Can All Be Explained”
Just when you think you've seen it all, heard it all, there is the musical.
Quote:
|
21st October 2012, 02:34 PM | #3712 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
Regardless if that is Ampulla's position, it is far more than an educated guess, and you know this. I am not surprised any longer by your blatant misrepresentation of the facts, either individually or in aggregate, but I also will not stop pointing it out.
The shroud is a medieval forgery. The facts are clear. Your position that it is authentic is not even a guess and is willfully uneducated; it is deliberately ignorant wishfulness. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
21st October 2012, 02:42 PM | #3713 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Jabba,
I suspect I am like you in that I do wish it really was Jesus’ burial cloth, just because it would be some corroboration of the bible. I am, however, willing to accept that it is not. The thing is, provable science trumps unverifiable beliefs, no matter how much one wishes it didn’t. The only thing I can say is it would have been a more robust scientific experiment had they abided by the original design of taking the samples from different areas of the cloth. According to IanS, the scientists believed it would be statistically safer to take multiple samples from different areas of the cloth. I agree with this. Just because it was the religious officials who did not allow this does not nullify the fact that it would have been less refutable had they done it that way. But even with all that said, you can't ignore the C14 results. |
21st October 2012, 02:44 PM | #3714 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
21st October 2012, 02:49 PM | #3715 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
My understanding of what Dinwar and IanS have said (and I gather they are not saying identical things, merely similar things) is that the procedure as done was more than sufficient for scientific surety regarding the data. Sampling from more multiple areas might have increased that surety but only in the final placement of the decimal point. Sort of like arguing over 1 in 1,000 odds v. 1 in 1,001.
So it really comes down to rhetorical certainty, and that is not the bailiwick of science. As has been pointed out, the scientific certainty is meaningless; regardless what science shows, the believers will find something specious upon which to latch. Jabba is excellent evidence of that. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
21st October 2012, 02:58 PM | #3716 |
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 |
|
21st October 2012, 11:29 PM | #3717 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
21st October 2012, 11:48 PM | #3718 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
21st October 2012, 11:58 PM | #3719 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
I'm quite curious about this as well. It seems to me that even if the shroud was dated to the first century, the cloth was identified as a product of Jerusalem, it was shown to have been soaked in bluuurd and it had a little tag in one corner saying "Property of Jesus" we'd still be no closer to demonstrating that anything in the Bible was true. In fact, given that the shroud of Turin differs significantly from the gospel accounts of Jesus' burial accoutrements, evidence of its authenticity would tend to show that the Bible got the story wrong. |
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
22nd October 2012, 03:04 AM | #3720 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,148
|
In comparison to most sampling processes for analysis the sample taken from the shroud was removed under extremely stringent conditions with multiple witnesses and video recording. Plus there were additional control samples and a reasonable attempt to blind the process.
Regarding changes in the procedure for radiocarbon dating, these were made by Cardinal Ballestrero and his science adviser Professor Gonella. I am unable to find any reference to a plan to remove three samples from the shroud, either in the SEP1986 or OCT1987 discussions. Perhaps you're confusing this with the control samples? No. The changes to what is sometimes referred to as the "Turin Protocol" were made in October 1987, not at the time of sampling (21APR1988) and were criticised by scientists at the time as they might leave the process open to suspicions of unreliability. The changes appear to have been motivated by a desire to minimise the amount of material removed from the cloth, i.e. the reduction of the number of laboratories performing the tests and the abandonment of the proportional counter technique. The process for blinding the shroud samples was also abandoned, this was the make the pretreatment (removal of contamination) easier. Can you cite a source for this? The original protocol agreed at Trondheim does not mention three samples to be removed from the cloth. It does refer to two additional control samples. I think you drastically over-estimate the rationality and reasonableness of believers. It wasn't long after the radiocarbon results were in that the believers were accusing the testing scientists of malfeasance and fraud. |
__________________
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 | |
|
|