Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Jabba,

If you are not a proponent of any "miraculous" qualities of the shroud then why is this thread called "Miracle of the shroud"?

To be fair, Jabba neither started nor labeled this thread. On the other hand, the question to Jabba is, if it is "authentic" then would that not require a miracle? So, in this case, aren't "authentic" and "miraculous" the same thing?

Ward

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

To be fair, Jabba neither started nor labeled this thread. On the other hand, the question to Jabba is, if it is "authentic" then would that not require a miracle? So, in this case, aren't "authentic" and "miraculous" the same thing?

Ward

Not if it was faked by miraculous means. It might be an example of a 14th century miracle...

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

To be fair, Jabba neither started nor labeled this thread. On the other hand, the question to Jabba is, if it is "authentic" then would that not require a miracle? So, in this case, aren't "authentic" and "miraculous" the same thing?

Ward

I see that now. I retract the question.

Authentic and miraculous would have to be the same thing unless one denies the divinity of Jesus. In that case authentic would be discussing a 2000 year old chemical reaction. Otherwise its still just a middle ages forgery.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'd have thought that it being fake would immediately preclude it being miraculous in any case.

Well... um... sure, but only if you believe in all that 'sciency' 'logic' stuff...

[Biscuit]

Doesn't idolatry of this shroud violate the second commandment anyway? Even if it is real shouldn't christians cast it aside and not worry about it lest they anger their god?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jon.

I think it's related to what my Star Trek: Next Generation-watching friends and I used to call "super spiffy particles." They sure got the Enterprise D out of lots of scrapes!

Wait! Are you suggesting that the labs got the ¹⁴C wrong because
they didn't reverse the polarity of their testing equipment? That's crazy.


But it just might be crazy enough to be true.

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Wait! Are you suggesting that the labs got the ¹⁴C wrong because
they didn't reverse the polarity of their testing equipment? That's crazy.


But it just might be crazy enough to be true.

We just need Geordie LaForge to recalibrate the testing equipment...

[wardenclyffe]

Run a level 3 diagnostic on it (I've said too much).

Ward

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

You can not *force* anyone to admit they are wrong on an Internet forum. The best you could achieve is that they simply ignore this thread and go start the same discussion elsewhere.

On the other hand, some of the posters here can be swayed into accepting their initial premises were incorrect.

After all, you *know* you are right, and Jabba *knows* he is right. And what have you achieved by just proving your point? The people that thought you were right all along still think that and the people that thought otherwise think you are a jerk who can't admit he is wrong.

No world deciding battles are fought here on this forum. And besides, it is my opinion that educating people is rather more important than just pointing out you are right. You know, the E in JREF...

So unless you can guide someone along it is nothing but a 'let's gang up on that poor crackpot and beat his reasoning into a pulp'.

That, to me, is pretty useless.

It is indeed useless, but if you look at my posts you'll see it's not in the least what I am doing. Jabba's website makes statements that contradict each other about what "authenticity" of the shroud implies, and what is meant by belief. I am merely asking Jabba to elucidate his position on this (it seems to me) unclear matter. That having been done, I may or may not argue with him. I presume the E in JREF permits disagreement of that order.

May I also recall that Jabba has entered this thread for the purpose of promoting the cause of the shroud, and there is currently another thread dealing with his activities and those of his shrouddebates forum in this field. He has set up an elaborate intellectual structure to facilitate these discussions, and evidently has colleagues aiding him, or so it would appear. His organisation is circulating its material to educational institutions and so on. He is under no obligation to do these things, but if he chooses to do them, surely commentators are entitled to question him on the exact nature of his organisation's theoretical position, as well as on the motives for its activities, and their intended purpose.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

To be fair, Jabba neither started nor labeled this thread. On the other hand, the question to Jabba is, if it is "authentic" then would that not require a miracle? So, in this case, aren't "authentic" and "miraculous" the same thing?

Ward

IIRR, Jabba has said that he does not postulate anything paranormal "for now", which is standard believer lingo for: "I'll try to suck you in by sticking to material arguments, and then spring my preconceived paranormal conclusion on you."

We see it all the time, and it never works, because, as it turns out, a sober materialistic chain of arguments never leads to a paranorrmal conclusion.


Hans

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

IIRR, Jabbe has said that he does not postulate anything paranormal "for now", which is standard believer lingo for: "I'll try to suck you in by sticking to material arguments, and then spring my preconceived paranormal conclusion on you."

We see it all the time, and it never works, because, as it turns out, a sober materialistic chain of arguments never leads to a paranorrmal conclusion.


Hans

Similarly the Mormons feed their new recruits on, as they say, "milk", before they are permitted to go on to the "meat" of the rather weird central Mormon doctrines. I just want to reassure myself that Jabba and his shrouddebates outfit are not employing such a tactic. I don't know what priority Jabba has given, in his elaborate scheduling structure, to a response to my enquiry.

[Jabba]

Hi guys,

- Not to worry -- I’m still here. I’ve been trying to track down scientific papers that would meet your standards…

- In particular, I’m looking for papers to answer Paladin’s questions regarding why we wanna-believers would be so sure that the image was that of Jesus, even if we COULD show that it was 2000 years old.
- More specifically, for the moment, I’m looking for confirmation, by people you would basically trust, that the particular weave was available in Palestine during the first century, but that the weave would not be one found on the usual crucifixion victim.

- I really do want to get to your numerous other questions and comments.
- I wish I was faster and had kept better track of my sources.
- And, by the way -- writing excuses doesn’t take up much time.

--- Jabba

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In particular, I’m looking for papers to answer Paladin’s questions regarding why we wanna-believers would be so sure that the image was that of Jesus, even if we COULD show that it was 2000 years old.

try
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010...ked-to-racism/

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

.
- More specifically, for the moment, I’m looking for confirmation, by people you would basically trust, that the particular weave was available in Palestine during the first century, but that the weave would not be one found on the usual crucifixion victim.

--- Jabba

If it was not to be found on the usual crucifixion victim, why should it be found on Jesus? He was nothing special in his time, and he had chosen to live in poverty.

If the cloth is something special, it may as well be taken as evidence that it did NOT belong to Jesus.

Please, in all your efforts, don't forget that this is really a side track. To skeptics, there is strong evidence that the shroud was faked much later, and if we take it as a fake, it is not surprising that it was made to fit the biblical account as closely as possible. - This part is a bit of a loose-loose battle for you.

Hans

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Jabba

.. - And, by the way -- writing excuses doesn’t take up much time.

It does if you do it dozens of times.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

If the cloth is something special, it may as well be taken as evidence that it did NOT belong to Jesus.

Like in Indiana Jones when the Nazi chooses the fancy cup when really the Holy Grail was the plain one. Have we learned nothing from that great documentary!?

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In particular, I’m looking for papers to answer Paladin’s questions regarding why we wanna-believers would be so sure that the image was that of Jesus, even if we COULD show that it was 2000 years old.

What makes you think Jesus would have looked anything like the image on the shroud?

I just don't get why the shroud needs to be real in a religion based on faith. So what if its a middle ages forgery? How would that change anyones understanding or belief in christianity?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Like in Indiana Jones when the Nazi chooses the fancy cup when really the Holy Grail was the plain one. Have we learned nothing from that great documentary!

I think of it every time I see our warehouse.

Hans

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- More specifically, for the moment, I’m looking for confirmation, by people you would basically trust, that the particular weave was available in Palestine during the first century, but that the weave would not be one found on the usual crucifixion victim.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

If it was not to be found on the usual crucifixion victim, why should it be found on Jesus? He was nothing special in his time, and he had chosen to live in poverty.

If the cloth is something special, it may as well be taken as evidence that it did NOT belong to Jesus.

I suspect that Jabba and the shroudies have this verse in mind:

Matthew 27:57-60
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

[Jabba]

Ladewig,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It does if you do it dozens of times.

Craig,
- But those dozens occur over several weeks, and the time they have required probably make up 1% of the time I've spent working on this stuff in general.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Paladin,
- This doesn’t address your questions, but in my search I ran into the following article, and couldn’t resist referring to it now… Sorry.

Gang,
-I have remote access to the NY State Education Library. The following article seems to me (allowing for my prejudice) very comprehensive and balanced. It appears January, 2005 in
Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.

“The Turin Shroud”
By Jonathan Allday
Head of Science, King’s School Canterbury, UK
Read Physics as an undergraduate and completed a PhD in particle physics at Liverpool.

- I don’t know if any of you have access to such journals, but if any of you do, I highly recommend this article. To me, while the author says up front

There have been few opportunities for the
scientific investigation of the Shroud, and those
that have taken place have generally posed as
many questions as answers. However, one piece
of research seems to have closed the issue of
its authenticity conclusively. In 1988 the results
of radiocarbon dating of fibres from the Shroud
were announced, seemingly pinning the origin of
the cloth to between 1260 and 1390. Place this
information alongside other pieces of evidence,
such as a memorandum to the Pope from Bishop
d’Arcis of Troyes c. 1389 in which he claimed to
be aware of the artist who had faked the Shroud
and that it was ‘cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that
it was a work of human skill and not miraculously
wrought or bestowed’, and the argument for the
Shroud being a fake is quite convincingly made.

- By the end, he doesn’t seem that convinced -- and in-between, he does a good job of summarizing the pro-authenticity evidence existing in January 2005. For instance,

One might have thought that straightforward
physical analysis of the cloth would be sufficient
to distinguish between a painting and an image
produced in some manner by physical contact
with a body. Unfortunately, almost every single
point made by a scientist, with an established
reputation in a relevant field, concerning the image
on the Shroud has been contested by an equally
reputable scientist with a different point of view.
The fact that scientists disagree, and often disagree
vehemently, should be a matter brought to the
attention of students of all ages...

…There have been many attempts to simulate
the image on the Turin Shroud, including a
painting being impressed onto a cloth in a manner
similar to a brass rubbing. A judgment of success
can only be subjective, but to date no reproduction
has been able to produce the3Dnature of the image
with the level of detail in negative! With our 21st
century technological sophistication, we are so far
defeated.

- Allday also refers to
-- a history of events and icons that appear to substantiate the Shroud’s existence, and itinerary, much prior to the 13th century;
-- The image and ‘blood-stains’ do not show up in X-rays – and, while blood wouldn’t show up in X-rays, paint pigments should.
-- The ‘bloody’ fibers showed matting whereas the image fibers did not.
- There are several more pro-authenticity findings to which the author refers, but I need to get moving. If your responses to this post warrant me describing the rest, I’ll include them in one of my next posts.

- Whatever, it seems to me that what this article primarily points out is that there really are two RATIONAL sides to this story.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Whatever, it seems to me that what this article primarily points out is that there really are two RATIONAL sides to this story.

That is a matter of opinion. In my view there is nothing rational about the mythical Jesus and his super powers.

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Whatever, it seems to me that what this article primarily points out is that there really are two RATIONAL sides to this story.

the quote that you're being selective with (and represents clutching at straws in my opinion) predates the story that has been linked in this thread already http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm

Quote:

he [the Italian scientist] added: "The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure."

And yet the myth of irreproducibility continues ...

So no, not really, it points to one RATIONAL explanation, being that the thing was faked, and one irrational one that involved magic (and that one would still be irrational even if there wasn't evidence that the effect could be achieved with "inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.")

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.

Sigh. PE is a light, fairly fluffy, publication aimed at secondary schools (ages 11 up). Peer review is light and carried out internally by the editorial board, all of who are secondary educators.
It's not somewhere you'd expect to see cutting edge science.

Originally Posted by Jabba

“The Turin Shroud”
By Jonathan Allday <snip>

Allday is not, as you're attempting to make out, a sceptic regarding the shroud. He's widely cited by shroudies as "pro-authenticity".
Neither is he an expert in the fields covered in his article.

Originally Posted by Jabba

There have been few opportunities for the
scientific investigation of the Shroud,

Very true. The believers are careful to avoid scrutiny of the cloth.

Originally Posted by Jabba

In 1988 the results
of radiocarbon dating of fibres from the Shroud
were announced, seemingly pinning the origin of
the cloth to between 1260 and 1390. Place this
information alongside other pieces of evidence,
such as a memorandum to the Pope from Bishop
d’Arcis of Troyes c. 1389 in which he claimed to
be aware of the artist who had faked the Shroud
and that it was ‘cunningly painted, the truth being
attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that
it was a work of human skill and not miraculously
wrought or bestowed’, and the argument for the
Shroud being a fake is quite convincingly made.

Yep. It's a pity believers deny the facts behind the shroud.

Originally Posted by Jabba

One might have thought that straightforward
physical analysis of the cloth would be sufficient
to distinguish between a painting and an image
produced in some manner by physical contact
with a body.

It can. It has. McCrone's work did that in 1978/9. Believers refuse to accept it.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Unfortunately, almost every single
point made by a scientist, with an established
reputation in a relevant field, concerning the image
on the Shroud has been contested by an equally
reputable scientist with a different point of view.

Not true. Very few scientists believe the shroud is genuine and even fewer of those who do can support their beliefs with evidence.

Originally Posted by Jabba

The fact that scientists disagree, and often disagree
vehemently, should be a matter brought to the
attention of students of all ages...

Why not expose the students to the evidence instead of attempting to argue from authority?

Originally Posted by Jabba

…There have been many attempts to simulate
the image on the Turin Shroud, including a
painting being impressed onto a cloth in a manner
similar to a brass rubbing. A judgment of success
can only be subjective, but to date no reproduction
has been able to produce the3Dnature of the image
with the level of detail in negative!

This is either an outright lie or else Allday has seriously neglected his research. You've already been told of the multiple recreations of the shroud using medieval technology.

Originally Posted by Jabba

With our 21st
century technological sophistication, we are so far
defeated.

Again this is simply untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Allday also refers to
-- a history of events and icons that appear to substantiate the Shroud’s existence, and itinerary, much prior to the 13th century;

No he doesn't. He neglects to provide supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Jabba

-- The image and ‘blood-stains’ do not show up in X-rays – and, while blood wouldn’t show up in X-rays, paint pigments should.

This is just nonsense. Plenty of pigments are transparent to x-radiation; I notice Allday doesn't cite any tests with the pigments discovered by McCrone in his tests.

Originally Posted by Jabba

-- The ‘bloody’ fibers showed matting whereas the image fibers did not.

Irrelevant. Matting does not imply blood.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- There are several more pro-authenticity findings to which the author refers, but I need to get moving.

Originally Posted by Jabba

If your responses to this post warrant me describing the rest, I’ll include them in one of my next posts.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Whatever, it seems to me that what this article primarily points out is that there really are two RATIONAL sides to this story.

No it doesn't. It shows that believers refuse to accept contradictory evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs.
As you've been told, with supporting links to more details and evidence, the shroud is a medieval fake and no amount of denial is going to change this.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention though; as a member of the Institute for 25 years, and a former officer, I intend to write to PE to bring the sloppy level of science in this article to their attention. Though as it's six years old I don't think much will be done, perhaps I should write an article outlining the real science for them.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

the quote that you're being selective with (and represents clutching at straws in my opinion) predates the story that has been linked in this thread already http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm



And yet the myth of irreproducibility continues ...

So no, not really, it points to one RATIONAL explanation, being that the thing was faked, and one irrational one that involved magic (and that one would still be irrational even if there wasn't evidence that the effect could be achieved with "inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.")

Actually I believe at least two of the recreations predate Allday's article, one certainly did. He may not have been aware of it though. I'll drop him an email and ask.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Paladin,
- This doesn’t address your questions, but in my search I ran into the following article, and couldn’t resist referring to it now… Sorry.

Gang,
-I have remote access to the NY State Education Library. The following article seems to me (allowing for my prejudice) very comprehensive and balanced. It appears January, 2005 in
Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges.

That is NOT what is meant in science research by a "peer reviewed research journal". What you are quoting appears to be no more than a magazine for teachers to write in.

You are quoting from what seems to be one of many thousands of commercial magazines which aim to make a profit by getting school teachers to write articles and then circulating the magazine regularly within subscribing schools for the teachers to read.

That has about as much to do with genuine “peer reviewed science research journals” as “UFO Monthly”!

[Craig B]

Jabba

You quote material from King's School, Canterbury. This establishment was set up by the Church in the earliest days. It is in the traditional centre of the established Anglican Church, and its "ethos" as mentioned in its website includes

Quote:

The close association with Canterbury Cathedral – the Dean is Chairman of Governors and the main school services are held in the Cathedral – emphasises the importance of the Christian tradition to the nature of the School. Pupils and staff may come from different religious and cultural backgrounds, but a strong sense of moral values, of toleration and respect for others, is common to all.

Indeed last month's school religious service was presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and broadcast by the BBC.

In the matter of magical Christian artefacts, King's School is not an impartial source.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by IanS

That is NOT what is meant in science research by a "peer reviewed research journal". What you are quoting appears to be no more than a magazine for teachers to write in.

You are quoting from what seems to be one of many thousands of commercial magazines which aim to make a profit by getting school teachers to write articles and then circulating the magazine regularly within subscribing schools for the teachers to read.

That has about as much to do with genuine “peer reviewed science research journals” as “UFO Monthly”!

Well to be fair it's not that bad; there is a (sort of) review process and a degree of control exercised by the IoP. I've had a few articles published in it, mostly in my postgrad days, as has my partner.
However you're right in that PE has no pretensions to being a true research journal, it's aimed squarely at bright secondary students with a bent for science.

[George 152]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

If it was not to be found on the usual crucifixion victim, why should it be found on Jesus? He was nothing special in his time, and he had chosen to live in poverty.

If the cloth is something special, it may as well be taken as evidence that it did NOT belong to Jesus.

Please, in all your efforts, don't forget that this is really a side track. To skeptics, there is strong evidence that the shroud was faked much later, and if we take it as a fake, it is not surprising that it was made to fit the biblical account as closely as possible. - This part is a bit of a loose-loose battle for you.

Hans

14th century cloth doesn't make it as a first century artifact.
It's a religious scam, just like the pieces of the 'true cross'...

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by George152

14th century cloth doesn't make it as a first century artifact.
It's a religious scam, just like the pieces of the 'true cross'...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

Quote:

By the end of the Middle Ages so many churches claimed to possess a piece of the True Cross, that John Calvin is famously said to have remarked that there was enough wood in them to fill a ship

Noah's ark perhaps?

[Ladewig]

A quick thought on peer-reviewed journals.

Jabba, imagine that you have been diagnosed with a serious illness. A homeopath comes to you and says, I can cure that illness with my little vial of water (which has the tiniest trace of poison in it). In fact, I am so confident that ultradiluted poison will cure you, that I encourage you to go do some research - see what other people are saying about it.

Would a single article in

Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.

be enough for you to forgo the traditional treatment and instead sip ultradiluted poison? I would hope not.

When looking for Shroud evidence and counter-evidence, use the standard of would I bet my health that this person has provided a true, objective, qualified, and unbiased study of subject.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

the quote that you're being selective with (and represents clutching at straws in my opinion) predates the story that has been linked in this thread already http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm



And yet the myth of irreproducibility continues ...

So no, not really, it points to one RATIONAL explanation, being that the thing was faked, and one irrational one that involved magic (and that one would still be irrational even if there wasn't evidence that the effect could be achieved with "inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.")

Just like bigfooters say the suit couldn't be reproduced.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

A quick thought on peer-reviewed journals.

Jabba, imagine that you have been diagnosed with a serious illness. A homeopath comes to you and says, I can cure that illness with my little vial of water (which has the tiniest trace of poison in it). In fact, I am so confident that ultradiluted poison will cure you, that I encourage you to go do some research - see what other people are saying about it.

Would a single article in

Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.

be enough for you to forgo the traditional treatment and instead sip ultradiluted poison? I would hope not.

When looking for Shroud evidence and counter-evidence, use the standard of would I bet my health that this person has provided a true, objective, qualified, and unbiased study of subject.

Faith knows no limits when searching for reasons to believe.

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by tsig

Just like bigfooters say the suit couldn't be reproduced.

Or crop circle believers when shown the plank and piece of string

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by tsig

Just like bigfooters say the suit couldn't be reproduced.

I wonder what the Venn diagram of these two groups would look like? The size of the overlap? The set of Bigfooters who think magic sheets are laughable? The set of "Shrouders" who chuckle at Big Foot being unfakeable?

(And just as an aside while writing this I've discovered that "unfakeable" is a valid word but "fakeable" isn't? )

[IanS]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Well to be fair it's not that bad; there is a (sort of) review process and a degree of control exercised by the IoP. I've had a few articles published in it, mostly in my postgrad days, as has my partner.
However you're right in that PE has no pretensions to being a true research journal, it's aimed squarely at bright secondary students with a bent for science.

Ha Ha (sympathetic smile) , OK fair enough … the comparison to UFO Monthly was just intended as an amusing remark, exaggerating to make the point (I don‘t even know if UFO Monthly exists).

But the substantial point is, as I think we agree, that Physics Education and similar publications (of which there are many) are not what scientists mean when they talk about publishing their work in “the peer reviewed research literature” - what research scientists mean, and what is relevant in the case of making meaningful validated tests on something like the Shroud, is of course real science research journals such as J. Am. Chem. Soc., and Phys Rev.

It sounds as if you have a background in science and therefore you do appreciate the difference. Though I think it’s clear that Jabba does not appreciate the difference between what are essentially popular-level magazines, such as Scientific American or New Scientist versus. genuine research journals.

The problem which Jabba is finding, as I suggested to him that he would, is that apart from the isolated rogue example of Rogers paper in Spectrochim. Acta., afaik there are no other research papers where any genuine relevant scientist has ever questioned the validity of the C14 dates.

Finally - well done on getting your articles published in Physics Ed .

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I wish I was faster and had kept better track of my sources.

I thought you had a website dedicated to the subject. Doesn't that have links to sources?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by IanS

Ha Ha (sympathetic smile) , OK fair enough … the comparison to UFO Monthly was just intended as an amusing remark, exaggerating to make the point (I don‘t even know if UFO Monthly exists).

Maybe the publishers of Squid Fishing Monthly could branch out.

Originally Posted by IanS

But the substantial point is, as I think we agree, that Physics Education and similar publications (of which there are many) are not what scientists mean when they talk about publishing their work in “the peer reviewed research literature” - what research scientists mean, and what is relevant in the case of making meaningful validated tests on something like the Shroud, is of course real science research journals such as J. Am. Chem. Soc., and Phys Rev.

Absolutely. The IoP has the mission of promoting physics at all levels, hence they publish PE, Physics World and others aimed at the non-professional; they want people to understand and embrace physics and don't limit themselves to professional academic or industrial physicists. I was a student member (secondary and undergrad), later a student representative (my first taste of organising a conference) and then a representative to the IoP council.

Originally Posted by IanS

It sounds as if you have a background in science and therefore you do appreciate the difference. Though I think it’s clear that Jabba does not appreciate the difference between what are essentially popular-level magazines, such as Scientific American or New Scientist versus. genuine research journals.

Yes. I studied physics and material science (to M.Sc. and Ph.D. level) and have written for both types of journal and there's a huge difference; back when I was engaged in MS research (high temp superconductors) I wrote a couple of articles for PE and PW, at the encouragement of my supervisors. It was good practice and good exposure, but they were completely different in form and tone to the ones I was writing for EJP or STAM; those were read primarily by professionals with a background in the material, and subject to peer review by knowledgeable specialists.

Originally Posted by IanS

The problem which Jabba is finding, as I suggested to him that he would, is that apart from the isolated rogue example of Rogers paper in Spectrochim. Acta., afaik there are no other research papers where any genuine relevant scientist has ever questioned the validity of the C14 dates.
Also agreed. Though I'm not so sure Jabba isn't aware of the limited value of the PE article.

Originally Posted by IanS

Finally - well done on getting your articles published in Physics Ed .

Ah, back in the days when I was considering an academic/research career before I went out into the real world..........
That said, even in more recent day I've had a few articles in PW/PE/CP and similar journals; my employer liked it, paid a bounty for published articles and it looked good on my revoew.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

A quick thought on peer-reviewed journals.

Jabba, imagine that you have been diagnosed with a serious illness. A homeopath comes to you and says, I can cure that illness with my little vial of water (which has the tiniest trace of poison in it). In fact, I am so confident that ultradiluted poison will cure you, that I encourage you to go do some research - see what other people are saying about it.

Would a single article in

Physics Education … the international [and peer-reviewed] journal for everyone involved with the teaching of physics in schools and colleges. The articles reflect the needs and interests of secondary school teachers, teacher trainers and those involved with courses up to introductory undergraduate level.

be enough for you to forgo the traditional treatment and instead sip ultradiluted poison? I would hope not.

When looking for Shroud evidence and counter-evidence, use the standard of would I bet my health that this person has provided a true, objective, qualified, and unbiased study of subject.

Ladewig,

- I'll try to be more discriminating.

- But then, the only peer-reviewed anti-authenticity articles of which I know are the 1989 Carbon Dating one in Nature and two by McCrone (can't remember where in a hurry, and these might have been one article just in different Journals -- one of them being in Italian).
- I'm starting to think that I should put Paladin's request on the back burner again (Sorry again, Paladin), and deal with the issue of bias and credibility of publications by the two sides. Most everyone here is questioning the motivation and credibility of me and my sources -- but so far, I think that my sources (at least) are much more credible and objective than are those of the other side...
- I can't address everything at once, and when I try to give a few quick answers, I accumulate a multitude of new objections to address... Maybe there is a logical order of what issues should be addressed when -- and right now, I'm thinking that the credibility of our sources might be the right place to begin. Maybe, the anti-authenticity sources are better than the pro-authenticity sources -- but so far, I sure don't think so.

- And Ladewig and Paladin, I do appreciate your patience.

--- Jabba