Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[wea]

This was probably talked to death already. He starts with bad premise and then it is a gigantic GIGO.

thank you Aepervius, I just noticed #1627 in this page cited one of the "authors"

 

[sackett]

Does that quantum Christ bloke really, truly publish under his own name -- and is his name really, truly Klotz? As in German, Klotz: lump of wood, stob, block, hence lout, fool, dolt?

As in Yiddish klutz?

Oh god, lay me down.

 

[Craig B]

You can simply replace the it in the link with en. This was probably talked to death already. He starts with bad premise and then it is a gigantic GIGO.

It is garbage from end to end. I was surprised by this statement

It has the characteristics of a Jewish burial cloth of the first cent. AD.

Only one such cloth is known, recently discovered in Jerusalem and described in the Daily Telegraph

Jerusalem tomb discovery casts further doubt on Turin Shroud

Archaeologists say they have discovered the first known pieces of a burial shroud from the time of Jesus in Jerusalem, casting doubt on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

Researchers believe the fabric of the fragments, the first of their kind to be discovered in Jerusalem, are of a different weave to those of the Turin Shroud, hailed by many as Christ's burial cloth but dismissed by others as a fake.

 

[hugh farey]

Does that quantum Christ bloke really, truly publish under his own name -- and is his name really, truly Klotz?

Indeed. This is he: http://www.johnklotz.com/home.htm

 

[Akhenaten]

Hugh and Ward,

It's hard to believe that you have yet to learn the lesson, even after years of having it repeated to you, that this approach to discussion in a public forum is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

- Everyone else will be asking me for citations and links. Please let me know if and when you need them.

Three years ago.

- Here’s my situation.

1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)

It's not about you.

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…

1. Yet again you display that your penchant for creating lists is in no wise related to your ability to do so with anything resembling either meaning or effect.

2.1. Your item 2a. (above) indicates that you have no idea what everyone here believes. Such meagre "evidence" as you have presented over the years has indeed been weighed and found wanting. The preclusion of which you speak does not exist.

2.2. You even contradict yourself by asserting, within a single list item, that "other evidence" is rendered moot by the results of the carbon dating and yet acknowledging that such evidence does indeed exist.

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.

If I ever find myself searching for a definition of "lack of objectivity" the above statement will be my go-to.

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.)

Jesus used to play fullback for Jerusalem. This leads me to another theory about the tablecloth.

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.

Now???

6. Unfortunately, it will take me awhile to dig up the real evidence for my claims in that regard.

Why not just use the evidence on which your current belief is based?

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.

Consequently?

I can't help but visualise Napoleon in his sitting room on St Helena exulting over how brilliant will be his victory at Waterloo.

8. I’ve previously listed my different areas of concern re the dating, but here’s an updated list:

Never saw that coming.

9. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.

Yeah, mass spectrometry is a notoriously emotional process.

Who can tell when the accelerator is having a bad day?

10. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.

Only because of interference by vested interests. Fortunately none of this petty squabbling had any effect whatsoever on the results obtained once the tests were carried out.

11. The size and location of the sample.

Oh, goody! The Return of The Patch™.

12. Potential of repair, contamination and “new" linen.

Golly. I can't believe we've never dealt with that issue before.

13. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.

And which way do you think the church might have attempted to skew the results?

14. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.

In what way did this affect the result?

15. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.

I find myself unable to argue with this. I have similar reservations about the gospels.

16. No test for chemical composition.

They're saving that little bombshell for when they're finally allowed to do a proper analysis of the bluuuurd.

17. No archeologist involved.

I suspect that's because there was no archæology involved.

18. STURP deliberately excluded.

The SPCA, OPEC and NATO were similarly shunned. How would you say this affected the test results?

19. Gove eventually excluded.

So were about 7 billion other people.

20. A clear age gradient within the sample.

There is insufficient data to support this claim.

21. Here’s a quote from “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz.

Looks exactly like one of your own lists, although I reckon you should get in touch with Mr Klotz and give him a few tips on formatting.

- I'll be back.

It's as though you never left.

 

[abaddon]

Long response. I will respond to a few, pardon my snips

It's hard to believe that you have yet to learn the lesson, even after years of having it repeated to you, that this approach to discussion in a public forum is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

Always, the drive is to exclude everyone with the exception of those he thinks he can respond to. I wonder why that might be?

It's not about you.

Beg to differ. Yes it is. It is about fighting the good fight. It matters not a whit that it is not doctrine, nor the science, nor the cogent opposition not anything. The illusory badge of honour remains.

1. Yet again you display that your penchant for creating lists is in no wise related to your ability to do so with anything resembling either meaning or effect.

Cast your mind back. The original claim was that such lists were unassailable proof. Until it got logically assailed. Then the backtracking began and has not yet ceased.

2.1. Your item 2a. (above) indicates that you have no idea what everyone here believes. Such meagre "evidence" as you have presented over the years has indeed been weighed and found wanting. The preclusion of which you speak does not exist.

It's a game. Same in many ways as bigfoot. Evidence matters not a whit, facts matter not a whit, arguments matter not a whit. Truth matters not a whit. All that really matters is to sustain the spook narrative at whatever cost.

2.2. You even contradict yourself by asserting, within a single list item, that "other evidence" is rendered moot by the results of the carbon dating and yet acknowledging that such evidence does indeed exist.

That's just how shroudies swing. It is true, it isn't. The science supports it or it doesn't. The research supports it or it doesn't. And so forth. Shroudies will claim all of them and none of them as suits the argument du jour. Without shame.

If I ever find myself searching for a definition of "lack of objectivity" the above statement will be my go-to.

Do you have a newsletter?

Seriously, I have to snip this off. The whacko claims are getting so far beyond the rational that it is law of diminishing returns territory. I am reluctant to invest much more effort in Jabba's blatant disingenuous ignoring of every response. He is blatantly attempting yet another fringe reset, and we should not enable such shoddy behaviour.

 

[Belz...]

Now???

Amazing, isn't it ?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

It should be pointed out for newcomers that Jabba had already been "effectively debating" the TTC for two years before he picked up here. I don't believe he has any intention of providing "evidence," he wants to keep the debate "live," at best.

 

[Rincewind]

It should be pointed out for newcomers that Jabba had already been "effectively debating" the TTC for two years before he picked up here. I don't believe he has any intention of providing "evidence," he wants to keep the debate "live," at best.

But if he doesn't let it die, how can there be a resurrection?

 

[Mojo]

But if he doesn't let it die, how can there be a resurrection?

This is the resurrection. The thread was crucified by Loss Leader.

 

[Rincewind]

This is the resurrection. The thread was crucified by Loss Leader.

Yeah, I forgot that...

 

[Peter i]

.... after 240 pages!
(And not a single proof)

 

[Jabba]

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.

Hugh,

- Thanks.

- As our colleagues here know, I’ve been studying this stuff for a long time, and have been reading about it even longer.
- I have a lot of excuses for not being better able to lay out the evidence for my current opinion (that the shroud is probably authentic).
- Aside from being 73 with a poor memory, I’ve never been able to tell a joke.
- I think that the main reason for that weakness is an inability to remember specifics very well.
- To tell a good joke, you need the specific words and “accents” (not just ethnic accents, but emphases in the right places also).
- I guess you could say that I remember the “idea” much better than I do the specifics.
- I seem to get the forest better than I do the trees.
- And, the forest just isn't as funny as the trees.
- I seem to be more of a holistic thinker than a reductionistic thinker…
- And besides, I haven’t kept good track of my sources…
- Anyway, that’s my s-s-story, and I’ s-s-stickin to it!

- For now, I’ll just address the claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence.
- I really can’t understand that much confidence in the dating.

1. My first reservations are about the objectivity of those shaping the process over the ten years.
2. Carbon dating the shroud became a highly prized endeavor, and fostered all sorts of animosity amongst those seeking to be involved.
3. None of us humans are really objective — and on the average, scientists probably aren’t much better than the rest of us…
4. Especially scientists with power…
5. And, it would appear that most of the scientists shaping this process over the ten years had large egos and lots of power.
6. Unfortunately, power does corrupt.
7. Looking closely, we seem to have a lot of egotistical and jealous characters seriously shaping the overall process.
8. On the skeptics’ side, we have McCrone, Gove, Sox, Hall, Tite, Chagas and Jull (just to name a few?).
9. And then, there was the Pope himself (apparently) who disassembled the protocols, and (to me) ruined any hope of surety in the results.
10. And then, there are numerous otherwise credible researchers who come to the same conclusion (i.e., they agree with me).
11. How can you be so sure that they’re wrong?
12. (Unfortunately, I do expect you to have some good reasons.)
13. I assume a lot of subjectivity from the other side (my side) – but to me, it isn’t nearly as obvious or effective.
14. I’ll leave that for you to specify (I’m sure you recognize it much better than do I).
15. To me, the most critical aspects of the “new” protocols were the number, size and location of the samples.
16. I.e., One, small, much handled and, probably, repaired corner.

 

[carlitos]

17. Jabba provides evidence that the Shroud of Turin is 2000 years old, and has something to do with Jesus Christ. Good luck!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

[hugh farey]

For now, I’ll just address the claim that the carbon dating justifies ignoring any other evidence.

I don't know of any non-authenticists who make that claim. On the contrary, those I know well have studied the counter-evidence in much greater detail than many authenticists, but have found it wanting.

None of us humans are really objective.

I dare say. That is why we have to set out our premises, arguments and conclusions as clearly as we can, so that anyone can understand exactly what they are, and decide for themselves whether they agree with them.

And, it would appear that most of the scientists shaping this process over the ten years had large egos and lots of power... Unfortunately, power does corrupt... [et seq.]...

I'm afraid this is vague rambling, Jabba. It looks as if it is heading in the direction of alleging some sort of international conspiracy to discredit Christianity by disproving the Shroud, headed by the only person involved who really did have some power, Pope John Paul II. Is that what you mean? I myself am certain that several of the scientists involved were sincerely hoping that the Shroud was 1st century, and genuinely sorry to find that it wasn't.

There are numerous otherwise credible researchers who come to the same conclusion (i.e., they agree with me)... How can you be so sure that they’re wrong?

I'm not sure they're wrong. Perhaps they are correct. Unfortunately, the more I study the evidence brought forward to support their beliefs, the less I find myself able to agree with it. In every single case I have explained in detail why (mostly at shroudstory.com). There are, to be sure, a few curious observations which I do think support authenticity, but they are insufficient to tip the balance of evidence in its favour.

I assume a lot of subjectivity from the other side (my side) – but to me, it isn’t nearly as obvious or effective.

No? As you and other commenters on this site know, I try to be emotionally mild but scientifically rigorous in all my online dealings, and am no less so at shroudstory than I am here. In spite of that, I have been called, at different times, by different people, a blind, rabid, arrogant, ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate, poisonous, dishonest, deceitful, envious, fearful, fanatical, sycophantic moron. To me, the subjectivity of authenticists is at least as obvious as that of non-authenticists.

To me, the most critical aspects of the “new” protocols were the number, size and location of the samples... [and]... One, small, much handled and, probably, repaired corner.

As the number, size and location of the samples was decided by the scientific representatives of the Shroud's owner, Pope John Paul II, I can only agree with you. However, I am satisfied that the subsequent result, that the Shroud is medieval, was not compromised by the details of the sampling procedure.

 

[Giordano]

Just to summarize Jubba's arguments, which have now come down to:

1. You can't believe anything if it refutes my pet hypothesis. Even if backed by independently derived scientific evidence and supported by the owner of the Shroud (the Pope, who would have a vested interest in believing my pet theory).

2, Yes, my side is subjective, but not as "effective" (convincing, based on facts) as the other side.

3. Therefore I believe the Shroud is real.

Even shorter summary:
I believe the Shroud is real.

As I have pointed out, it is okay by me if Jabba believes this, but I remain mystified as to what he is trying to achieve by posting these completely implausible beliefs here. I guess it can be an entertaining form of recreation if people around you just don't want to discuss it anymore.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much baselkess allegation and ungrounded accusation>...16. I.e., One, small, much handled and, probably, repaired corner.

It is interesting that NOT ONE person who has actually handled the CIQ has been able to detect the slightest sign of "some patching", as you claim there must be.

it is interesting that you have, simply, IGNORED all of the information provided to you about your "invisible" patching dream, including the FACT (not the opinion) that, even if reweaving had been done, to be done it would have to have used other threads from the same cloth...which would still result in the same ¹⁴C dates.

It is interesting that you make free to accuse others of dishonesty and bias, given the great beam in your own techniques.

...and we have all been over this, all of this, before...

 

[wardenclyffe]

It is interesting that NOT ONE person who has actually handled the CIQ has been able to detect the slightest sign of "some patching", as you claim there must be.

it is interesting that you have, simply, IGNORED all of the information provided to you about your "invisible" patching dream, including the FACT (not the opinion) that, even if reweaving had been done, to be done it would have to have used other threads from the same cloth...which would still result in the same ¹⁴C dates.

It is interesting that you make free to accuse others of dishonesty and bias, given the great beam in your own techniques.

...and we have all been over this, all of this, before...

And this was not stuff that we've told Jabba. This was primary research that he did himself. He contacted experts in "invisible" weave technology and discovered all this information himself. Yet, it's as though that research never happened in Jabba's brain. I used to be concerned about Jabba's health. I thought he was maybe losing his memory. It now seems clear that it's pure cognitive dissonance. He seems to simply be incapable of retaining any information that does not agree with his worldview---even when he seeks that information of his own volition. It's very mysterious.

Ward

 

[PizzaTheHutt]

1. My first reservations are about the objectivity of those shaping the process over the ten years.
2. Carbon dating the shroud became a highly prized endeavor, and fostered all sorts of animosity amongst those seeking to be involved.
3. None of us humans are really objective — and on the average, scientists probably aren’t much better than the rest of us…
4. Especially scientists with power…
5. And, it would appear that most of the scientists shaping this process over the ten years had large egos and lots of power.
6. Unfortunately, power does corrupt.

This notion of Jabba's that the scientists involved in the carbon dating were conspiring to produce a medieval result makes no sense. Every single one of the scientists involved would be instant household names if the result had been 1st century. They would be world famous celebrities in the same vein as Lord Carnarvon upon discovering Tutankhamun's tomb. This would have been a spectacular discovery that would have rocketed them all to superstardom. They had everything to gain by finding a 1st century date and very little to gain by finding any other date. If anything, the fact that anything but a 1st century result was obtained should indicate that the scientists involved were unbiased and objective to the best of their abilities. Conspiracy theories to the contrary seem like the desperate last attempt of the desperate authenticist to keep their horse in the race (or flogging it as in Jabba's case ).

 

[Pixel42]

I still want to know how any bias in the scientists, either for or against a first century date, could have affected the result of the carbon dating. The whole point of a rigorous scientific protocol such as the one used is to eliminate the effect of bias. So unless someone can demonstrate that the protocol was flawed (which no one, least of all Jabba, has done) any bias in those carrying it out is completely irrelevant.