Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
How about you provide evidence of your claim? Let's do try to remember that the burden if proof is on you.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
But not miraculous.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,360
Though it might leave a mysterious outline on the material that the theory had been wrapped in.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating Doubts
Hugh and Ward,
- Everyone else will be asking me for citations and links. Please let me know if and when you need them.
- Here’s my situation.
1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)
2. I think that everyone here -- besides me -- believes that
a. While we can never be totally sure about essentially any conclusion, there is not enough doubt about the carbon dating results to warrant serious weighing of any other evidence. (IOW, this case was effectively closed by the carbon dating.)
b. And besides, the other evidence supports inauthenticity anyway…
3. Since I do want the shroud to be authentic, I can’t fully trust my own current conclusions about this — but so far, I do disagree on both counts.
4. I’ll try to tackle the latter count, but first, I need to shed its blocker — if I can. (I used to play American football.)
5. Mostly, I’m really surprised that you two are so confident about the carbon dating (the “blocker”) – so, that’s what I will try to focus on for now.
6. Unfortunately, it will take me awhile to dig up the real evidence for my claims in that regard.
7. Consequently, I’ll present a lot of my claims before I can (even in my own opinion) adequately support them – figuring that you guys can fill in most of the blanks yourself, and then confront me about the rest.
8. I’ve previously listed my different areas of concern re the dating, but here’s an updated list:
9. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.
10. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.
11. The size and location of the sample.
12. Potential of repair, contamination and “new" linen.
13. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.
14. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.
15. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.
16. No test for chemical composition.
17. No archeologist involved.
18. STURP deliberately excluded.
19. Gove eventually excluded.
20. A clear age gradient within the sample.
21. Here’s a quote from “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz.
[Professor Emanuela] Marinelli related to the Valencia Conference [in 2000] how competent scientists attacked the execution of the process and charged the labs with concealing the data necessary to determine adequately what they had done in their experiments. She cited a fifteen point critique of Philippe Bourcier de Carbon delivered at an international symposium in Rome in 1993: 14 (1) Absence of a formal report of the sampling; (2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging; (3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by people in charge of the sampling (4) Breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating; (5) Rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test; (6) Refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for radiocarbon dating; (7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who participated in previous works of STURP; (8) Communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior to testing; (9) Intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job; (10) Disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings; (11) Refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989); (12) Non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories; (13) Unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud; (14) Rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed; (15) Rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
- Klotz, John (2014-09-30). The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness (Kindle Locations 5350-5365). John C. Klotz. Kindle Edition.
- I'll be back.
Hugh and Ward,
- Everyone else will be asking me for citations and links. Please let me know if and when you need them.
- Here’s my situation.
1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)
2. I think that everyone here -- besides me -- believes that
a. While we can never be totally sure about essentially any conclusion, there is not enough doubt about the carbon dating results to warrant serious weighing of any other evidence. (IOW, this case was effectively closed by the carbon dating.)
b. And besides, the other evidence supports inauthenticity anyway…
3. Since I do want the shroud to be authentic, I can’t fully trust my own current conclusions about this — but so far, I do disagree on both counts.
4. I’ll try to tackle the latter count, but first, I need to shed its blocker — if I can. (I used to play American football.)
5. Mostly, I’m really surprised that you two are so confident about the carbon dating (the “blocker”) – so, that’s what I will try to focus on for now.
6. Unfortunately, it will take me awhile to dig up the real evidence for my claims in that regard.
7. Consequently, I’ll present a lot of my claims before I can (even in my own opinion) adequately support them – figuring that you guys can fill in most of the blanks yourself, and then confront me about the rest.
8. I’ve previously listed my different areas of concern re the dating, but here’s an updated list:
9. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.
10. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.
11. The size and location of the sample.
12. Potential of repair, contamination and “new" linen.
13. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.
14. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.
15. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.
16. No test for chemical composition.
17. No archeologist involved.
18. STURP deliberately excluded.
19. Gove eventually excluded.
20. A clear age gradient within the sample.
21. Here’s a quote from “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz.
[Professor Emanuela] Marinelli related to the Valencia Conference [in 2000] how competent scientists attacked the execution of the process and charged the labs with concealing the data necessary to determine adequately what they had done in their experiments. She cited a fifteen point critique of Philippe Bourcier de Carbon delivered at an international symposium in Rome in 1993: 14 (1) Absence of a formal report of the sampling; (2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging; (3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by people in charge of the sampling (4) Breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating; (5) Rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test; (6) Refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for radiocarbon dating; (7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who participated in previous works of STURP; (8) Communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior to testing; (9) Intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job; (10) Disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings; (11) Refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989); (12) Non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories; (13) Unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud; (14) Rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed; (15) Rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
- Klotz, John (2014-09-30). The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness (Kindle Locations 5350-5365). John C. Klotz. Kindle Edition.
- I'll be back.
Last edited:
Why don't you go and do that before coming back with another post that promises what you're going to do?
No, really, just stick to the one thing.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!
If only, oh, if only EACH and EVERY ONE of your points 9-20 had been DISCUSSED (yea,even discussed to death) by MULTIPLE educated laymen and professionals ON an OPEN THREAD (in a public forum) then, perhaps, we might come to know the TRUTHTM©®.
I think that's where we started though! That is - iirc myself and others said exactly that to Jabba after his first few pages of posts (and how far back is that? how long has this thread been going on?).
Obviously Jabba believes it because he wants to.
And as I think you are saying above; when people have a strong religious belief, its a "faith", it's not something they can really justify by objective evidence, or even by rational argument ...
... though having said that, when you talk to devout religious people, or even read their posts here, they actually do insist that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that their beliefs are true and that atheists/non-believers are certainly wrong to doubt it.
I believe certainty is possible. The inclusion of "totaly" is merely an out many leave themselves.Jabba said:
A backwards and back-handed way to put it, but yes: the carbon dating was conclusive.
Gods be praised, a moment of honesty from Jabba!
We have discussed the carbon dating to death. There is NO rational reason to dismiss it. ALL of the errors that could have happened are in your favor and still failed to produce your desired result.
Your surprise is merely because you want the shroud to be old, not because of any facts about the issue.
We will never see it, in other words.
You don't like it when we do that. We tend to use facts and logic, which tend to oppose your conclusions.
Oh, let's do!
No impact on the C14 results whatever.
Typical in all field work, due to field conditions. Also, the alterations were agreed to.
The size was more than adequate and hte location was chosen by experts who determined it to be consistent with the rest of the cloth. Also, all invisibile patch techniques would make it BETTER, as the area would represent a composite sample of the whole cloth.
This argument is substantiated by absolutely nothing, and therefore isn't even an argument but rather a wish.
Typical in sampling, particularly with artifacts. Unless the sample area is significantly different (meaning an actual patch), it's irrelevant who selects it. Seriously, most sample points are some guy putting a dot on the map and going "I dunno, how about here-ish?"
Typical in field work, and would have no affect on the C14 dating.
NO sample has EVER been subjected to the level of control that these were. Complaining about one step not being videotaped is insane, pure and simple.
I'm going to ignore all other "this is typical of sampling events" points, because the above are sufficient to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of sampling procedures and therefore your inability to evaluate them.
A very minor one, and a very likely outcome from the random variations expected in extremely young C14 samples. Think about it: you can either have an age gradient or a middle sample being weird.
Nothing new, nothing valid.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
For now, you only need to provide evidence that the Tablecloth of Turin is 2000 years old.
Nothing else matters if you can't support that claim.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,360
Scores (in binary) remain -
Jabba - 0 (nothing)
Reality - 1 (everything)
Jabba - 0 (nothing)
Reality - 1 (everything)
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
You will have to wait for the second coming and the second shroud to get anything resembling evidence.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Hi Jabba. Regarding the quote from The Quantum Christ.
1) Absence of a formal report. I'm not sure about this. The radiocarbon dating was a private contract between the Pope, as owner of the Shroud, and the British Museum, who were asked to arrange it. For all I know there was an extremely detailed report, which has not been made public. The paper published in Nature was an off-spin of the arrangement, presumably by arrangement with the Pope or his representatives.
2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps. Unless John Klotz is implying that such an absence indicates deliberate fraud, this is hardly relevant. Very few radiocarbon samples are taken with any video at all.
3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and weight. No official reports have been made public (see above!). There have certainly been contradictions and confusions about the samples by some of the people who surely should have kept better records, but, again, unless there is an accusation of deliberate fraud, these are insufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of the dating.
4) Breaches of protocols. Yes, indeed, lots of them. The sampling story is a bit of a fiasco. However, samples were taken, and were dated, and the clumsiness of the events leading to the dating does not detract from the results.
5) Rejection of the 'usual' double blind procedure. Radiocarbon dating is never a double-blind procedure, let alone usually. Laboratories invariably ask for a detailed provenance for the sample submitted, and have a very good idea of the expected date before they start.
6) Refusal of interdisciplinary documentation. I'm not sure what this means. All the labs were well aware of the STuRP findings of ten years earlier (the interdisciplinary documentation). There was some indecent squabbling between two sets of scientists on the one side (The Radiocarbon team and STuRP), and two sets of priests on the other hand (the Vatican and the Archdiocese of Turin), but the scientific findings were published and available.
7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists. This was part of the indecent squabbling referred to above. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but think that the (by then) obvious religious bias of the STuRP team may have played a part.
8) Communication of the dates of the known samples was unusual. No it wasn't. See (5) above.
9) Intercommunication between laboratories. This is still hearsay, but cannot be discounted. However, it is relevant only if Oxford and Zurich fraudulently doctored their results to fit the Arizona results. I don't believe this is generally believed.
10) Disclosure to the media of the results before publication. Unfortunate, but irrelevant.
11) Refusal to publish raw results. See (1) above.
12) Non-explanation of the Oxford anomaly. Untrue. The Nature paper explains exactly what the statisticians did and why.
13) Unacceptable chi-squared value of 6.4. Unacceptable by whom? An anomalous value must be explored and accounted for, not accepted or rejected. It was explored and accounted for.
14) Rejection of cross-debate on the statistical measures. There has been no such rejection, as far as I know. The Nature statistics were referred to an independent professor of statistics on Turin for confirmation before publication.
15) Rejection of the publication of the statistical expertise of Prof. Bray's confirmation. What does this mean? Prof. Bray checked the results and confirmed them. What was there to publish? His letter saying the results were satisfactory?
All in all, Jabba, nearly all the points above are intended to sow in the minds of authenticists the possibility that the radiocarbon dating was deliberately fraudulently manipulated by a number of people, presumably acting in concert, including the Vatican, the Archdiocese of Turin, The British Museum and the Radiocarbon labs, all of whom wanted to prove that the Shroud was a fake. This makes no sense whatever.
1) Absence of a formal report. I'm not sure about this. The radiocarbon dating was a private contract between the Pope, as owner of the Shroud, and the British Museum, who were asked to arrange it. For all I know there was an extremely detailed report, which has not been made public. The paper published in Nature was an off-spin of the arrangement, presumably by arrangement with the Pope or his representatives.
2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps. Unless John Klotz is implying that such an absence indicates deliberate fraud, this is hardly relevant. Very few radiocarbon samples are taken with any video at all.
3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and weight. No official reports have been made public (see above!). There have certainly been contradictions and confusions about the samples by some of the people who surely should have kept better records, but, again, unless there is an accusation of deliberate fraud, these are insufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of the dating.
4) Breaches of protocols. Yes, indeed, lots of them. The sampling story is a bit of a fiasco. However, samples were taken, and were dated, and the clumsiness of the events leading to the dating does not detract from the results.
5) Rejection of the 'usual' double blind procedure. Radiocarbon dating is never a double-blind procedure, let alone usually. Laboratories invariably ask for a detailed provenance for the sample submitted, and have a very good idea of the expected date before they start.
6) Refusal of interdisciplinary documentation. I'm not sure what this means. All the labs were well aware of the STuRP findings of ten years earlier (the interdisciplinary documentation). There was some indecent squabbling between two sets of scientists on the one side (The Radiocarbon team and STuRP), and two sets of priests on the other hand (the Vatican and the Archdiocese of Turin), but the scientific findings were published and available.
7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists. This was part of the indecent squabbling referred to above. I don't know the ins and outs of this, but think that the (by then) obvious religious bias of the STuRP team may have played a part.
8) Communication of the dates of the known samples was unusual. No it wasn't. See (5) above.
9) Intercommunication between laboratories. This is still hearsay, but cannot be discounted. However, it is relevant only if Oxford and Zurich fraudulently doctored their results to fit the Arizona results. I don't believe this is generally believed.
10) Disclosure to the media of the results before publication. Unfortunate, but irrelevant.
11) Refusal to publish raw results. See (1) above.
12) Non-explanation of the Oxford anomaly. Untrue. The Nature paper explains exactly what the statisticians did and why.
13) Unacceptable chi-squared value of 6.4. Unacceptable by whom? An anomalous value must be explored and accounted for, not accepted or rejected. It was explored and accounted for.
14) Rejection of cross-debate on the statistical measures. There has been no such rejection, as far as I know. The Nature statistics were referred to an independent professor of statistics on Turin for confirmation before publication.
15) Rejection of the publication of the statistical expertise of Prof. Bray's confirmation. What does this mean? Prof. Bray checked the results and confirmed them. What was there to publish? His letter saying the results were satisfactory?
All in all, Jabba, nearly all the points above are intended to sow in the minds of authenticists the possibility that the radiocarbon dating was deliberately fraudulently manipulated by a number of people, presumably acting in concert, including the Vatican, the Archdiocese of Turin, The British Museum and the Radiocarbon labs, all of whom wanted to prove that the Shroud was a fake. This makes no sense whatever.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,360
Imagine the stain that will leave!
I haven't read this long thread, just the last page, so I apologize if this is not pertinent. Just an advice: citing "professors" Fanti or Marinelli is self-discrediting, they don't understand what they are talking about in their own disciplines, let alone this stuff. Have a look at the bs they publish, e.g. www.shroud.com/fanti2it.pdf . I can help those who need a translation, it's incredible people producing such rubbish get a universitary chair (or a primary school licence, for that matter) but hey, that's Italy!
even better, the conclusions
www.shroud.com/fanti3it.pdf
"..the s. is authentic with a probability of 100% and uncertainty 10-83"
a funny thing (among others) is that applying their revolutionary method the opposite thesis is equally "probable" 100%, just with a different "uncertainty", whatever this could mean
www.shroud.com/fanti3it.pdf
"..the s. is authentic with a probability of 100% and uncertainty 10-83"
a funny thing (among others) is that applying their revolutionary method the opposite thesis is equally "probable" 100%, just with a different "uncertainty", whatever this could mean
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
- Status