ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 26th November 2015, 08:11 PM   #1681
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
- What do you mean by "committed sidonist"? I probably disagree.
A person, like yourself, for whom "authenticity" is a pre-assumed and foregone conclusion; such that all, any, reality must be filtered though the conclusion that the CIQ must be the True Shroud©®

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yes.
What is it, then; and why do you, personally, think it qualifies the Good Professor as an "expert" in potential multi-person daring or medieval cloth repair?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Which ones?
The ones that have been pointed out to you, multiple times. I take it you have not, then?

How sad.

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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 26th November 2015 at 08:14 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th November 2015, 04:04 AM   #1682
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,182
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Thanks. You too.

- I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation. Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
(On Jabba's current "expert witness")...

So again, we see the cart before the horse:

Jabba has no idea why the person expresses what he does, but since it is useful for Jabba's forgone conclusion, it must be good.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 27th November 2015, 07:07 AM   #1683
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Jabba has no idea why the person expresses what he does, but since it is useful for Jabba's forgone conclusion...

It isn't.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 27th November 2015, 07:56 AM   #1684
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,803
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
- In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
Possibly. But it isn't difficult to find Delorenzi's area of expertise. On the subject of credibility, though, M&P have suggested that the repair by the Poor Clare nuns was done in 1973, and asserted that Gove invented C14 dating. Their ability to fact check and report honestly is already in doubt.

The fact that they twist a quote about the documented repairs to support their desire for there to be an undocumented, invisible, impossible repair is just another nail in their credibility coffin. All of their comments and claims in that pdf are therefore suspect.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Originally Posted by jond View Post
I know Jabba won't read this, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued thoughtful efforts throughout this train wreck.
Second.
Thank you both, it is much appreciated!
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
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 27th November 2015, 09:15 AM   #1685
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?

Jabba, please address this point.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 28th November 2015, 07:02 AM   #1686
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

Entry: #1
Date: 1976
Data Category: General possibility of repairs
Evidence: Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my
examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in
the historical records
(the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess
Clotilde).‖
Source: Delorenzi, Enzo: 1976. ―Observations on the Patches and Darns in the Holy Shroud.‖
In Doyle, E., M.Green, Fr., & V. Ossola (Trans.) Report of Turin Commission on the Holy
Shroud (pp. 108-123). Unpublished. Translation of La S. Sindone: Ricerche e studi della
Commissione di Esperti nominata dall‘Arcivescovo di Torino, Card. Michele Pellegrino, nel.
Comments: This indicates that the Shroud could have received undocumented repairs in its
history. The report describes various documented repairs in the C-14 sample area, including a
repair by the Poor Clare Nuns in 1973 after the Raes sample extraction (piece extracted by
Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes). These repairs may or may not have appeared in part or in
whole in the adjacent sample used for the C-14 test in 1988. The person responsible for
extracting this sample, Italian scientist Giovanni Riggi, never mentions these threads as
specifically being eliminated from the sample. However, a drawing by Riggi (found in BonnetEymard,
Bruno, ―The Carbon 14 Dating,‖ Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,
April 1991, No.238, pg. 2), and a statement by Riggi demonstrate some recognition that darning
may have overlapped part of the sample and that he attempted to cut a portion of the threads out.
(See entry number 8 in this section.)


- You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent). One of his conclusions was, "I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records."
- I see this as "expert opinion." I just wouldn't accord it a whole lot of weight, without more info -- i.e., the subject of Delorenzi's expertise, to what extent he studied the shroud and to what extent (if any) he explained his impression.
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?

Jabba, the point made by Agatha here demonstrates that your quotation from Delorenzi is irrelevant to the question of the age of the cloth and irrelevant to the issue of whether the carbon dating is reliable. Either rebut Agatha's point or abandon your "entry #1" and move on to #2.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 28th November 2015, 08:15 AM   #1687
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Jabba,

Try returning to and addressing the topic at hand.

Do you concede that your first point from your risible pdf list of speculations is rejected as worthless?

Do you accept that Enzo has no expertise in textiles, has an authenticity agenda has not actually done any scientific examinations of the cloth and simply provides baseless "impressions"?

Do you understand that Enzo was a consultant hospital radiologist with no relevant expertise whatsoever?

Do you understand that Enzo was twice appointed by the Vatican to a papally blessed commission about the cloth in 1969 and again in 1973?

Do you understand that there is a reason that this occurred?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 28th November 2015, 09:22 AM   #1688
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
There is no reason, either, to cite the number of the rule you feel has been breached when reporting - it is sufficient to say "off topic" or "uncivil" or "attacks the arguer". For the avoidance of doubt, mods posting in this thread are posting in a non-mod capacity, and should a post be reported it would be left to a mod who is not involved in the thread to decide whether rules have been breached.

Now, could we, for the love of Meg Ryan's face cream, get back to either discussing evidence, M&P's interpretation of Delorenzi's quote, or move to Jabba's next point?
Sure we can. Everyone here has addressed point #1 from the PDF. Everyone pretty much agrees it is useless. However, until Jabba concedes that point, we must perforce remain stuck at point one.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 28th November 2015, 10:20 AM   #1689
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,803
Jabba, I have neither insulted you nor been disrespectful, yet you ignore my posts.

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Now, could we, for the love of Meg Ryan's face cream, get back to either discussing evidence1, M&P's interpretation of Delorenzi's quote2, or move to Jabba's next point3?
1. We'll need to be provided with some.

2.
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
- In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
Possibly. But it isn't difficult to find Delorenzi's area of expertise. On the subject of credibility, though, M&P have suggested that the repair by the Poor Clare nuns was done in 1973, and asserted that Gove invented C14 dating. Their ability to fact check and report honestly is already in doubt.

The fact that they twist a quote about the documented repairs to support their desire for there to be an undocumented, invisible, impossible repair is just another nail in their credibility coffin. All of their comments and claims in that pdf are therefore suspect.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Originally Posted by jond View Post
I know Jabba won't read this, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued thoughtful efforts throughout this train wreck.
Second.
Thank you both, it is much appreciated!
3. The floor is yours, Jabba.
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
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 28th November 2015, 11:48 AM   #1690
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You have presented your PDF as evidence, you have stamped your feet and demanded that it be dealt with one point at a time...
With respect to the rest of your post, which is spot-on, I believe it is we who have demanded he go point by point. Jabba erroneously considered the totality of it to stand as a "consilient" argument and opposed a detailed examination. I showed how consilience requires examination of each point individually, in isolation. And he seems to have accepted that requirement. He has consented to discuss his list of evidence point-by-point, but it was not his demand that we do so, as I recall.

Specifically Jabba wants some of these to stand as expert judgment in favor of his belief, that apparently being that the carbon-14 testing should be set aside because it was done on fabric added to the cloth in the 14th Century, the date shown by testing. Here's where his first point stands according to those criteria.

Lack of foundation. Delorenzi does not state upon what specific evidence or specific observation is "impression" is based. No evidence is presented that Delorenzi carried out the sort of examination that would ordinarily be required to observe and develop evidence supporting this conclusion. Other suitable examinations by others failed to produce any such evidence. Jabba admits this deficiency, and arrogantly suggests his critics do so on his behalf.

Lack of foundation. Determination of individualized styles or patterns in textile fabrication is not a lay skill. No evidence has been shown to establish that Delorenzi has the required training and experience. No evidence has been produced to substantiate that Delorenzi possesses any such skill -- however derived. Jabba has indicated he is aware of Delorenzi's true qualifications but indicates he wishes Delorenzi nevertheless to be given "some kind of credibility." Jabba admits he is aware of the authors' misrepresentation of Delorenzi's field, and of the likely reason for that misrepresentation being to obscure or deliberately misstate Delorenzi's credentials.

Discord. Properly qualified experts have examined the cloth in a manner relevant to this statement and have failed to observe any evidence suggesting repairs by any hand, let alone by people not already accounted for. Delorenzi's statement, as interpreted for the purpose of this point, is contradicted by the consensus of the relevant science. Jabba has not acknowledged this fact.

Irrelevant. The statement is interpreted by others in hearsay fashion to support the hypothesis that a repair was made to the cloth, by means unknown and undocumented in the accompanying historical record. Delorenzi's statement itself alludes to no such thing. No context or clarification is provided to support the authors' use of the statement. There is no rational connection between Delorenzi's statement and the authors' assertion that it supports their thesis. The authors have simply manufactured it out of whole cloth. Jabba has indicated he is aware of the authors' misuse, but he has chosen not to address it.

These injuries are fatal to the claim in re Delorenzi. Jabba has indicted little if any intent to rehabilitate the Delorenzi quote. Therefore Delorenzi's statement remains disqualified on the above grounds and we should urge him to move on to point no. 2.
JayUtah 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 28th November 2015, 12:06 PM   #1691
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,803
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,
- You have been one of my most respectful opponents -- if not the most respectful. But, I have read most, if not all, of your posts, and I have tried to respond at various times. I'm pretty sure that the last time, you just didn't get back to me before I felt the need to respond to someone else -- probably Slowvehicle.
- I often respond to Slowvehicle, despite his tendency to insult, for two reasons: 1) It's hard for me not to respond to disrespect, and 2) I keep thinking (or hoping) that he's turning over a new leaf...

- I'll be back.
And yet, you ignored the substantive point of the very post you quoted. Which was: why do you give credence to M&P's interpretation of Delorenzi's quote (M&P suggest that Delorenzi's quote supports an invisible, undocumented repair in the sample area) when Delorenzi only referred to believing that more than six people were involved in the work on the visible, documented repairs?
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
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 28th November 2015, 01:05 PM   #1692
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
With respect to the rest of your post, which is spot-on, I believe it is we who have demanded he go point by point. Jabba erroneously considered the totality of it to stand as a "consilient" argument and opposed a detailed examination. I showed how consilience requires examination of each point individually, in isolation. And he seems to have accepted that requirement. He has consented to discuss his list of evidence point-by-point, but it was not his demand that we do so, as I recall.

Specifically Jabba wants some of these to stand as expert judgment in favor of his belief, that apparently being that the carbon-14 testing should be set aside because it was done on fabric added to the cloth in the 14th Century, the date shown by testing. Here's where his first point stands according to those criteria.

Lack of foundation. Delorenzi does not state upon what specific evidence or specific observation is "impression" is based. No evidence is presented that Delorenzi carried out the sort of examination that would ordinarily be required to observe and develop evidence supporting this conclusion. Other suitable examinations by others failed to produce any such evidence. Jabba admits this deficiency, and arrogantly suggests his critics do so on his behalf.

Lack of foundation. Determination of individualized styles or patterns in textile fabrication is not a lay skill. No evidence has been shown to establish that Delorenzi has the required training and experience. No evidence has been produced to substantiate that Delorenzi possesses any such skill -- however derived. Jabba has indicated he is aware of Delorenzi's true qualifications but indicates he wishes Delorenzi nevertheless to be given "some kind of credibility." Jabba admits he is aware of the authors' misrepresentation of Delorenzi's field, and of the likely reason for that misrepresentation being to obscure or deliberately misstate Delorenzi's credentials.

Discord. Properly qualified experts have examined the cloth in a manner relevant to this statement and have failed to observe any evidence suggesting repairs by any hand, let alone by people not already accounted for. Delorenzi's statement, as interpreted for the purpose of this point, is contradicted by the consensus of the relevant science. Jabba has not acknowledged this fact.

Irrelevant. The statement is interpreted by others in hearsay fashion to support the hypothesis that a repair was made to the cloth, by means unknown and undocumented in the accompanying historical record. Delorenzi's statement itself alludes to no such thing. No context or clarification is provided to support the authors' use of the statement. There is no rational connection between Delorenzi's statement and the authors' assertion that it supports their thesis. The authors have simply manufactured it out of whole cloth. Jabba has indicated he is aware of the authors' misuse, but he has chosen not to address it.

These injuries are fatal to the claim in re Delorenzi. Jabba has indicted little if any intent to rehabilitate the Delorenzi quote. Therefore Delorenzi's statement remains disqualified on the above grounds and we should urge him to move on to point no. 2.
A most excellent rejoinder that warrants quoting in full.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 28th November 2015, 01:09 PM   #1693
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
A most excellent rejoinder that warrants quoting in full.
Thanks! But now I can't go back and correct typos I see half an hour later.
JayUtah 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 28th November 2015, 03:00 PM   #1694
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I want to congratulate everyone for abandoning the work on consilience and debating an irrelevant topic of Jabba's choosing for the past two days.

No, wait. I mean you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

Jabba, you have a list of claims. You're trying to show consilience by considering each claim in turn. The first claim has been properly discarded after due consideration. Please proceed to the next.
Prestige,
- Please direct me to the post where the first claim was properly discarded -- I didn't mean to discard it.
__________________
"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 č 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 28th November 2015, 03:04 PM   #1695
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Please direct me to the post where the first claim was properly discarded -- I didn't mean to discard it.

Here it is:

Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 28th November 2015, 03:11 PM   #1696
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Hey, Jabba:


Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Why would you add it to your 'pro-undocumented invisible-repair pan', when Delorenzi's quote only refers to his "impression" of the number of people involved in the actual, documented and highly visible repairs?

Please, answer this or move on.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 28th November 2015 at 03:13 PM.
Mojo 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 28th November 2015, 03:12 PM   #1697
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Please direct me to the post where the first claim was properly discarded
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11002001

Address these points immediately, if you please.

Quote:
I didn't mean to discard it.
You're presenting your evidence to us for evaluation. You aren't the one who decides whether it stands or falls.

Over the past 48 hours or so I have emphasized the reasons why the Delorenzi statement is disqualified. I have used the word "disqualified" several times and challenged you either to rehabilitate it or move on. Please explain why you can spend so much time in blatant self-absorption and manage to miss all the various posts that actually discuss your proffered evidence.
JayUtah 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 28th November 2015, 03:45 PM   #1698
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Prestige,
- Please direct me to the post where the first claim was properly discarded -- I didn't mean to discard it.
You didn't discard it, everyone else did.

The simple fact that you have failed to even realise that point #1 has been comprehensively trashed and demonstrated to be without merit clearly shows that you are wantonly ignoring what everyone, even your anointed respondents, have been saying for days.

I cannot direct you to "the post". There are a veritable multitude of them not just one. Which particular rebuttal is it that you are desirous of? Are you not reading this thread? Are you not reading the responses provided?

Let me guess. You will disrespectfully ignore this response as is your MO.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
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 28th November 2015, 04:05 PM   #1699
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,700
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Prestige,
- Please direct me to the post where the first claim was properly discarded -- I didn't mean to discard it.
You misunderstand my demeanor. In fact you are not choosing me. I am choosing you.

My choice is contingent on you discarding De Lorenzi, and presenting your next claim for consideration.

If you don't mean to discard the claim, then I have nothing for you to respond to. Move on from De Lorenzi, or move on from me. Either way, move on.
theprestige 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 28th November 2015, 05:07 PM   #1700
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
...have been saying for days.
Let me underscore this: literally for days. During those days we have been favored with precious few posts from Jabba, none of them addressing the concerns raised regarding Delorenzi. Yet when his ego is bruised, we get post after post pursuing that.

This is insulting.

Jabba presented his first witness. In good faith several posters followed up on the testimony, researched it, drew their conclusions, and laid out lines of reasoning for Jabba to address. Against their better judgment and counterindicated by Jabba's established reputation, they took his offering seriously and presented a serious response. No material response from Jabba.

Jabba seems to think that a veneer of cordiality protects him from any culpability for disrespect. If that is what he thinks, then he should pay heed to Steven King's opinion that that Rowling's Dolores Umbridge is the scariest villain in literature. Sweetly brushing off well-considered criticism is an insult to the critics, no matter how sweetly it is done. Congenially suggesting that critics must have meant something other than what they said is an insult, no matter how congenially the suggestion is phrased.

With the moral high ground now appropriately leveled, it is high time for Jabba to quit publicly licking his imaginary wounds and pay attention to the only thing his critics have discussed before this trumped-up offense.
JayUtah 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 28th November 2015, 05:15 PM   #1701
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,856
Mod WarningThis thread is a horrible mess of off-topic-ness. Please stop.

The topic is the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The topic is not the forum rules, who's violating them, and where they are to be found. The topic is not who's living in the basement of whom. The topic is not about posting the reasons the poster is not responding to another posters remarks.

Shroud of Turin. Not those other things.

The moderators will be delighted by your continued attention to the Membership Agreement and your compliance thereof.
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher 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 28th November 2015, 05:22 PM   #1702
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 jsfisher View Post
Mod WarningThis thread is a horrible mess of off-topic-ness. Please stop.

The topic is the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The topic is not the forum rules, who's violating them, and where they are to be found. The topic is not who's living in the basement of whom. The topic is not about posting the reasons the poster is not responding to another posters remarks.

Shroud of Turin. Not those other things.

The moderators will be delighted by your continued attention to the Membership Agreement and your compliance thereof.
Posted By:jsfisher
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Please be so kind as to address item #2 in the M&P paper...

Thanks!
__________________
"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 28th November 2015, 06:43 PM   #1703
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
Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

Any chance you might address item #2 in the M&P paper?

Or any other positive evidence that the sized and gessoed linen of the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

Yours,

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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 28th November 2015 at 06:46 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2015, 03:30 AM   #1704
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,
- Do you really need to fuss at me?
You know you don't need an excuse to stop discussing this topic, now that it's been shown that you have zero evidence, right? You could always silently leave if that's what you're going to do anyway.

Otherwise I suggest you address the question at hand, and stick to the topic.
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 29th November 2015 at 03:32 AM.
Argumemnon 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 29th November 2015, 03:45 AM   #1705
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
Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Any chance you might address item #2 in the M&P paper?

Or any other positive evidence that the sized and gessoed linen of the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

Yours,

&ct.
__________________
"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 29th November 2015, 04:59 AM   #1706
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment/Delorenzi

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material


- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 09:58 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 29th November 2015, 05:25 AM   #1707
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,803
What Delorenzi said referred to the number of hands (or people) whom he believed had worked on the visible and documented repairs. He had an "impression" that more than six people had worked on them; he did not refer to any undocumented repairs. I look forward to you discussing his quote and why M&P have interpreted it the way they have.

If trying to encourage you to return to the topic of the M&P paper that you introduced is "fussing at you", then I apologise for doing so.
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
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 29th November 2015, 05:31 AM   #1708
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
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material


- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Here is an opportunity to learn:

Prof. Delorenzi was, in fact, a Radiologist; he did, in fact, undertake the radiological examination of many works of art. He even, in fact suggested that a radiological examination of the CIQ would be valuable. On the ohter hand, he did not undertake such an examination of the CIQ. He cannot be said to have brought his expertise to bear upon the CIQ. There is, in fact, no record I can find of his being allowed to handle the CIQ, or to examine it other than in its frame.

Further (and more injurious to your case), the quote you offer does not refer to "invisible" reweaving, or "near-invisible" reweaving, or "undetecable" repair, nor even "...some patching" at the sampling site; instead, it refers to the open and notorious patching on the rest of the CIQ (that M&P mis-dated).

What is missing from the third-hand account of Prof. Delorenzi's conjecture is...evidence.

Never mind that you, yourself, provided links that demonstrated that the "invisible" (or "French") reweave technique uses threads form the original cloth being rewoven (which means that such a repair could not alter the date, but would, in fact, make the sample even more representative of the whole cloth). Never mind that "invisible" repair uses minimal added thread (which means, of course, that there would not be enough egregious thread to skew the date).

What is important is that Prof. Delorenzi offered a conjecture, outside his area of expertise, without any evidence.

Had the good Professor been able to say, "Guarda, here is the rent in the CIQ that was repaired: Oservare, these are the modern threads that are bollixing the date," this would be a different argument. However, he did not. Instead, he got an "impression", an impression in line with his commitment to the authenticity of the CIQ.

On to the next.

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

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 09:58 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 29th November 2015, 05:35 AM   #1709
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material


- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
The whale analogy shows you have ignored everything your most patient interlocutors have said about statements by experts and in particular those by Delorenzli. If you are not going to have an intellectually honest approach to the discussion then don't bother coming back.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 09:59 AM.
Sideroxylon 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 29th November 2015, 05:54 AM   #1710
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material


- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
If you didn't have all that, then why did you present it as evidence?

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 09:59 AM.
Craig4 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 29th November 2015, 06:02 AM   #1711
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Further (and more injurious to your case), the quote you offer does not refer to "invisible" reweaving, or "near-invisible" reweaving, or "undetecable" repair, nor even "...some patching" at the sampling site; instead, it refers to the open and notorious patching on the rest of the CIQ (that M&P mis-dated).

What is missing from the third-hand account of Prof. Delorenzi's conjecture is...evidence.

Never mind that you, yourself, provided links that demonstrated that the "invisible" (or "French") reweave technique uses threads form the original cloth being rewoven (which means that such a repair could not alter the date, but would, in fact, make the sample even more representative of the whole cloth). Never mind that "invisible" repair uses minimal added thread (which means, of course, that there would not be enough egregious thread to skew the date).

What is important is that Prof. Delorenzi offered a conjecture, outside his area of expertise, without any evidence.

With respect, the important point about this quotation is the one I have hilighted above. It is simply not relevant to the age or authenticity of the cloth, or the reliability of the carbon dating. Please don't encourage Jabba to continue to filibuster by discussing the expertise or evidence behind this irrelevance.

Jabba, it's time for item #2. Item #1 is done.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 29th November 2015, 07:11 AM   #1712
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material


- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.

You should have vetted Delorenzi before trotting him out as an expert witness. His testimony is irrelevant because he was discussing the known, visible patching done by the Poor Clares. His expertise in radiology is irrelevant unless he were discussing some radiological evidence WRT the authenticity of the CIQ.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 09:59 AM.
John Jones 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 29th November 2015, 08:25 AM   #1713
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,102
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave....
How so. Unless his examination involved X-raying the cloth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiology
The Sparrow 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 29th November 2015, 08:29 AM   #1714
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,182
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic material and response to same


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
Do your own homework.

Quote:
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
Explain why.

Quote:
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
Only the truely desperate would want to rally the testimony of drunken sailors.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Last edited by kmortis; 30th November 2015 at 10:00 AM.
MRC_Hans 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 29th November 2015, 08:54 AM   #1715
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc.
Please tell us why you haven't already done this. Is it going to be your habit to misrepresent as "expert witnesses" people you know little or nothing about? Are you simply credulously parroting the words of your authors, who have now given you plenty of reasons to distrust them?

Quote:
You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
No. He's your witness. Do your own homework.

Quote:
I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
No.

Quote:
I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
Then for the reasons already elaborated -- at length -- Delorenzi remains disqualified until such time as you feel like rehabilitating him, which you seem not to want to do. Don't drag on so. Move on to no. 2, as nearly all your critics have admonished you to do.

Quote:
He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
We have, and for good reasons. Reasons you will not address, and reasons that have, in large part, to do with facts you cannot make go away by handwaving appeals to extend Delorenzi's expertise to cover the topic.
JayUtah 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 29th November 2015, 08:58 AM   #1716
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, it's time for item #2. Item #1 is done.
Agreed. However, from the opposite perspective, nos. 2 through whatever are not likely to fare well either. Having reluctantly agreed to a detailed examination of evidence he expected to stand alone on sheer weight of numbers. his moving on is anathema. But on the other hand, if the discussion bogs down on no. 1, then the rest of the points don't get examined and remain ambiguous. Dollars to donuts we'll be mired in Delorenzi until the critics drop away by attrition.
JayUtah 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 29th November 2015, 09:02 AM   #1717
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Only the truely desperate would want to rally the testimony of drunken sailors.
Jabba forgets he's trying to show consilience. The more he has to tap dance, cajole, and imaginatively interpret each point on his list, the more it can be said to be anti-consilient.

Jabba is still very much in the dark about what it means for something to be consilient. Because the concept was raised to him in response to a particular assertion, he has the wrong idea. Jabba's claim was that the number of points of testimony was important, and also that they agreed in support of his hypotheis. That together, says Jabba, makes a case. However, consilience deals almost exclusively with the latter, not the former. That is, while by definition it takes at least two lines of evidence to argue by consilience, the key concept is how they are developed in light of each other and the overall hypothesis. The qualitative development is the probative factor, not the number. Three points of consilient evidence is far more convincing than a dozen barely relevant ones.

Last edited by JayUtah; 29th November 2015 at 09:30 AM.
JayUtah 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 29th November 2015, 09:23 AM   #1718
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...discovering anomalies in the weave.
Let me add that Delorenzi didn't claim to discover "anomalies in the weave." In fact you have no idea what physical observation, if any, led him to form his "impression." You must rely solely on what Delorenzi said and did, not what you imagine his testimony might mean.
JayUtah 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 29th November 2015, 10:01 AM   #1719
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,700
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Instead, I'm going back to Delorenzi and further explore his expertise, etc. You guys could speed things up by telling me where you find your info about him.
- I did find out that his expertise was in radiology -- which seems to me like an expertise useful in discovering anomalies in the weave.
- I'll be back to further discuss Delorenzi's credibility, and what he said.
- He might be a drunken sailor, but he might be saying that he saw a whale, and we probably shouldn't be dismissing his testimony.
It seems like now might be a good time for us to set Delorenzi aside for a while, and see whether the other items on the list promise better results. If it turns out that items 2 and 3 are sufficient to establish consilience, that would save you a lot of time and effort trying to rehabilitate Delorenzi. And if not, you can always come back to Delorenzi once you have a better idea of how important he is relative to the other items.
theprestige 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 29th November 2015, 10:13 AM   #1720
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,435
I only wished to emphasize to Jabba that he is the one who seek to prove authenticity- withholding his evidence is not leverage that can be applied to the anti-authenticity posters. They don't belief your viewpoint and they don't even believe that you have any evidence to withhold. Threatening to withhold any pro-authenticity evidence that you might have only hurts your argument and re-enforces the anti-authenticity side.

If you have any non-debunked evidence of the authenticity of the SOT now would be the time to present it to strengthen your argument. If you don't present this pro-evidence the people following this thread will inevitably conclude that you have none, which I gather would not be what you are seeking. Please state your most convincing evidence first- your quote from a radiologist who glanced at the SOT from a distance and had the impression that multiple hands worked on the well known and highly visible patches was totally irrelevant and only further convinced the anti-authenticity side that you have no evidence- even indirect or circumstantial.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.