Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

You're right. It's EXCELLENT scientific methodology, so far over and above any reasonable expectation that any criticism amounting to "not good enough" is a confession of overwhelming bias on the part of hte accuser.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Why should we care what you recommend? You admit to having little knowledge of the process. Why should we discard what multiple experts say, in favor of what someone with merely a "layman's understanding" says?

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Uh.....huh...... You price that out. Have fun.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

This illustrates your incompetance and your lack of knowledge of the actual C14 dating done. In lab work, these are called "standards", and I've yet to encounter a lab technique that doesn't include them. The shroud samples were run along side specific standards, so this was already done.

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

This is nothing more htan the invisible patch nonsense with a different label.

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Explain exactly how blinding matters to a process 100% reliant upon physical constants.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

You are placing this in opposition to the current method--where the results are subject to review by EVERYONE. You want to REDUCE review, not add to it.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

Again, this reveals your gross incompetance in terms of C14 dating. C14 dating labs include these. Radiometric dating training includes fairly intense statistical training.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

As opposed to THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

Nope. Patent nonsense.

Serious question for you: Do you believe ANY C14 dating? Because--again--the shroud has been subject to orders of magnitude more duplication than ANY C14 dating that I've heard of. To reject the shroud sampling as insufficiently controlled is to reject ALL C14 dating, because nothing else rises to the level of the shroud sample procedures.

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I understand how it works. Being a layman is not synonymous with = know nothing.

Fine. Explain the marine bias, then. (This is a basic issue with C14 dating, one that anyone familiar with the process will necessarily know about.)

Bible 1: Scientists 0.

Pi=/=3. Bible 1: Scientists 1.
The origine of the world is COMPLETELY different from the Biblical explanation. Bible 1: Scientists 8 (being generous to the Bible).
Women did not come from ribs. Bible 1: Science 9

Need I continue?

Also, note that yet again you are insisting on ignoring modern science, and relying on an outdated and disproven concept to shore up your arguments. So really, the Bible is still at 0.

Also note htat you are again ignoring the obvious poetical nature of the statement. This is numerology--it's pure magic. By the Biblical law we should stone you.

 

[ferd burfle]

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Each lab will carry out AMS testing and FOUR other types of testing (for example, chemistry, material science, art and textile) under controlled laboratory conditions, with an independent professional observer.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

Now if you just throw in a pony for each of the lab employees' daughters

 

[zooterkin]

What are you afraid of? Scientific method involves replication of results, no?

They've already been replicated. 9 results, all in the same range.

 

[Dinwar]

So, Hans, let's establish facts once and for all. Three labs running three tests on AMS which was known to be unreliable in 1986 is not good enough.

This IS NOT a fact. The errors of the method WERE NOT sufficient to affect the conclusion; three labs is TWICE the number of duplicates required by the most stringent rules; the labs EACH ran duplicates, making the results MORE reliable; the date of hte sampling means NOTHING to the results; etc.

This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to dismiss a conclusion you don't like, rather than addressing it--and is therefore dishonest.

 

[Vixen]

For all it's faults (which are many), I'm glad that the Catholic church doesn't think this way, but also thinks of the art and history that has to be preserved for the future (aside from the function the CIQ has in veneration). It's not theirs to do whatever they like with it and they know it and act like it.

That's true, as far as it goes. However, to preserve it for the future, we need to know whether it merits its perceived value.

AIUI the cloth is large, big enough to cover a male six foot three, over and under.

Scientific sampling has become so advanced, the sample doesn't need to be more than a few square centimetres.

The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.

 

[Degeneve]

The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.

Who said this?

Mrs. Flury Lemberg, who was in charge of the restauration of the shroud in 2002 and who is an expert in textiles, has clearly explained that there is no patch in the part where the sample has been taken away from the shroud.

I hope you will not come back with the "invisible mending" theory...

 

[Dinwar]

What are you afraid of? Scientific method involves replication of results, no?

I'm not afraid of anything. Again, I have no side in this fight--I DON'T CARE what the results are.

Science relies on replication, yes--which is why this sample WAS replicated. FAR more than ANYONE could have hoped for.

Unlike you, I understand both sampling methods and C14 dating. I understand the cost, the SOPs, industry standards, etc. You, in contrast, are pulling nonsensical requirements out of thin air, requirements that are so unreasonable that I cannot imagine there is any purpose other than to be impossible--thus allowing you to pretend that the results aren't good enough. Do you, for example, have any clue what the cost of 2k labs running samples is?

What are YOU afraid of? Why are YOU cowering away from the results?

AIUI the cloth is large, big enough to cover a male six foot three, over and under.

Except for that lack of gap at the head.

Scientific sampling has become so advanced, the sample doesn't need to be more than a few square centimetres.

And you base this on.....?

 

[zooterkin]

Scientific sampling has become so advanced, the sample doesn't need to be more than a few square centimetres.

As was the case in 1988, yet you complain about the sample being from "one tiny area", for some reason.

The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.

Given the scrutiny of the cloth when the sample was selected, do think it possible that they would have taken the sample from a patch? Have you looked at pictures of the shroud?

 

[abaddon]

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Each lab will carry out AMS testing and FOUR other types of testing (for example, chemistry, material science, art and textile) under controlled laboratory conditions, with an independent professional observer.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

That would consume something in the region of half a square meter of the CIQ. Not going to happen. The Vatican would never allow that. Nor should it be allowed to destroy a historical artefact simply out of pique and stubbornness.

I put it to you that what you are seeking to do is set the bar for conclusive evidence so high that it can never be reached, and thus maintain the mystique of the tablecloth of Turin in perpetuity.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If the authenticity of the CIQ is the slender thread by which your faith hangs, then it is a most fragile faith indeed.

 

[Belz...]

What are you afraid of? Scientific method involves replication of results, no?

You mean, like three results from three different labs ?

And it is thanks to the human brain we are able to do it.

....So what ? It isn't thanks to faith.

 

[Vixen]

Actually he doesn't. He focuses on the radiocarbon dating and his nonsensical theory regarding carbohydrate deposition (and displays gross ignorance of the Maillard reaction).
De Wesselow ignores the multitude of problems with the body image and blood mark features that his claimed "method" fails on. Nor does he cover in any reasonable detail the vastly more likely alternate methods for the deposition of the shroud (i.e. painting).


Unlikely. The shroud fails to conform with usual Jewish practices and is woven in a style completely unknown in that period.


No. The mainstream ones are the examinations by McCrone and the peer-reviewed Nature paper. Not Ray Rogers garbage.


Early/mid nineteenth century United States, specifically the fall and rise of Federalism in relation to John Marshall.

Yet De Wesselow didn't publish in any of the usual journals and demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of radiocarbon dating and basic organic chemistry.

I had an interest in that era in that part of the world.

OK, so De Wesselow is rubbish in your eyes, but at least he had the courage to put forth his opinions and provide the sources for them.

 

[Belz...]

The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.

Not this again.

No, this isn't true. Sheesh, you'd think people would actually make some effort to educate themselves before coming here, looking to show us skeptics how awesome their knowledge is.

 

[jimbob]

That's true, as far as it goes. However, to preserve it for the future, we need to know whether it merits its perceived value.

AIUI the cloth is large, big enough to cover a male six foot three, over and under.

Scientific sampling has become so advanced, the sample doesn't need to be more than a few square centimetres.

The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.

Why?

It is first mentioned about 800-years ago, it uses a weaving technique that was current about 800-years ago, but not 2000-years ago. It is anatomically impossible for it to be an image of a body, and three independent labs with independent contamination protocols came up with a Carbon-14 date about 800-years ago. If there was a spread in the Carbon-14 dates then you might have a point... but there isn't.

It's a medieval forgery, albeit one of the more interesting ones. It was fingered as a forgery in the medieval period.

 

[ferd burfle]

Scientific sampling has become so advanced, the sample doesn't need to be more than a few square centimetres.

Please provide evidence for this claim, including which specific C14 dating method(s) require what mass of sample, for a total of 1000 labs times the number of replications. Please do show your workings with supporting links/references; TIA.

 

[Dinwar]

OK, so De Wesselow is rubbish in your eyes, but at least he had the courage to put forth his opinions and provide the sources for them.

So what? He's wrong. That's all that matters in science.

 

[Giordano]

Now we have two posters in this thread who pay absolutely no attention in their posts to the many attempts by others here to point out the facts. At times with both I have sensed a learning curve in their posts leading to a gradual acknowledgment of certain of the real issues. But with both there has been the proverbial "fringe rest" in which all of this progress of at least accepting certain facts is lost, and we have returned to precisely the same viewpoints as at the very beginning. I continue to be surprised each cycle; one must clear an entire portion of one's memory to be able to suddenly ignore what one has already learned.

I compliment Jabba: his posts are often duplicative and uninformative, but seldom angry.

 

[Vixen]

Once this is done there should be almost nothing left from the shroud.

I am furthermore wondering why 200 labs would get to a better result than three different labs, which was - and still is - an exceptionnal procedure.

Are really sure you understand how this kind of tests really works?

Broadly speaking, if you want to ensure your sampling is truly random, two hundred is a good figure to aim for. It will give you a meaningful range of standard deviation, allow you to see what type of statistical distribution it is (eg, normal, poisson, etc) and most importantly you can check whether your results are statistically significant, rather than by random chance.

 

[John Jones]

There is more to the argument than carbon dating. I have a layman's knowledge of carbon dating and according to several posters, I am therefore barred from even discussing the Turin Shroud.
[...]

Who said you couldn't discuss the shroud?

You're not qualified to have an informed opinion about ¹⁴C dating if you're not informed about ¹⁴C dating, but you are entitled to speak at length about topics you don't understand, and even to make spurious citations that don't support what you claim. I've seen people do it before.

 

[John Jones]

Yes. BUSTED! Three samples to three labs, self-selected, using a self-selected sole testing technique, and one for luck, from one tiny area of the "humunguous" cloth, in 1988, and the only other time prior to that was 1974, is NOT good scientific method.

Next time the cloth is released for scientific testing I would suggest the following:

Tender put out to labs with ISO standards from all over the world.

One thousand labs randomly selected to carry out test.

Two hundred will sample the REAL cloth (each sample to be cut in twelve and each part tested individually).

The samples are to come from all areas of the cloth that do not impinge on the intrinsic content.

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C6 (say)

900 to receive a sundry cloth piece known to date from C16 (say)

All labs selected to receive a control piece of cloth with the same herringbone weave pattern as the original. These will be blind, no lab will be informed which is the control.

Each lab will carry out AMS testing and FOUR other types of testing (for example, chemistry, material science, art and textile) under controlled laboratory conditions, with an independent professional observer.

The raw data to be analysed by an independent centralised laboratory.

The numerical results to be analysed by professional statisticians.

The overall results to be interpreted by 200 carefully selected persons.

We can either accept the Null Hypothesis the cloth is not >AD100, or reject it.

Absolutely ridiculous requirements.

 

[Belz...]

Broadly speaking, if you want to ensure your sampling is truly random, two hundred is a good figure to aim for.

No, that is an impossible requirement and you know it.

You already admitted that faith is all you have, here. Stop pretending that evidence has anything to do with it.