• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
AIUI they could not agree on which part of the cloth. There was allegedly no witnesses when the samples were put in sealed containers. The samples all came from one part of the cloth.

Do you understand why some people were not satisfied?
Click to expand...


No. Unless you are proposing that the Archbishop of Turin actually swapped out the samples with medieval linen when no one was looking. Why would he do this?
 
Vixen said:
"Obviously" = logic fallacy
Click to expand...

No, a scientific theory provides a frame work to understand observed facts. The theory of evolution provides a framework to understand the facts of evolution, to use your example. Using the word the way you did, it's obvious you don't know what a theory is in the scientific sense.
 
Mashuna said:
I see - you learnt enough statistics to pass a psychology undergraduate course, and now you're trying to apply it incorrectly to other situations.
Click to expand...

As you yourself said as a postgrad accountant, probability theory and standard deviation came in to play, albeit with reference to risk, market volatility and decision making.

I am not applying it to other situations, as I am not involved in shroud testing.

Having read <whisper it> De Wesselow <fx hold up crucifix and garlic> and Wilson and a few pages of thread I could see there is an air of dissention over the 1988 tests.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You said all our fantastic advanced technology is due to science.

I said the high-tech is thanks to the human brain.

Not created by scientists.
Click to expand...

Did nobody else see the humor of this statement?
I guess scientists don't have human brains? What exactly is in their heads then?
And yes, science, through the use of human brains, is exactly what created our high-tech fantastic advanced technology.

sorry to be so late to the thread... brains...
 
Vixen said:
Not analogous at all. The correct analogy is that 200 labs up to ISO standard be randomly allocated samples from various different areas, with a further number of labs having a dummy sample, with none of the labs knowing which type they received, together with a control sample which looks identical to the original.

Nowhere did I say one lab should test all of it x 200 times.

(200 is a suggested figure to make statistical analysis robust.)

But then you knew what I meant.
Click to expand...
Suppose you have a sample of a substance, say a meteorite, and want to know what chemical elements it contains, then you get it analysed and accept the results. The lab you sent it to doesn't produce a random result that has to be replicated 200 times before you can be confident that it is accurate. You may want to get it checked by another lab, bit it's not a random result. That's nonsense.

You have to look at hundreds of people to determine the average height of people in London, but if one of these people is Mr Smith, you can look at that one person and state confidently: Mr Smith has brown hair. You don't need to look at hundreds of other people to determine the truth of that statement.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
As you yourself said as a postgrad accountant probabilty theory and standard deviation came in to play, albeit with reference to risk, market volatility and decision making.

I am not applying it to other situations, as I am not involved in shroud testing.

Having read <whisper it> De Wesselow <fx hold up crucifix and garlic> and Wilson and a few pages of thread I could see there is an air of dissention over the 1988 tests.
Click to expand...

The people who believe in the holy table cloth will never accept any evidence and they have plenty already. If you destroyed the thing tomorrow while testing it and said it was 700 years old, the followers would cry conspiracy and then find the vision of the Virgin Mary in toast or elephant poo and venerate that.
 
Craig4 said:
No, a scientific theory provides a frame work to understand observed facts. The theory of evolution provides a framework to understand the facts of evolution, to use your example. Using the word the way you did, it's obvious you don't know what a theory is in the scientific sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, "it provides a framework". No more, no less.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Did you use your own hands to measure your own head?

Did you even attempt to assume the "Shroud SlouchTM" on a flat surface?

Have you even considered the lack of distortion in the representation on the CIQ?

Start there...
Click to expand...

I mentioned the rather good illustrations and explanation in De Wesselow's book. I was subjected to some abuse so backed off slinking away with figurative rotten fruits thrown after me.

OK, I'll have a look.
 
Vixen said:
<snip for focus>
The part sampled in 1988 was said to be the repair patch from the known fire.
Click to expand...

By whom?

A mere glance at pictures of the CIQ is enouh to show that there is no plain patch (such as those installed by the Little Sisters of Poor Needlework) at the tested area. Further, Mme Fleury-Lemberg actually examined bot sides of the cloth, and found no evidence of (as was claimed above_ "some patching".

Your claim that the test samples comprised parts of a visible patch is on the same level of intellectual honesty as suggesting that Mme F-L did not notice that the backing (and not the CIQ) was what actually got tested...
 
Vixen said:
In effect, the argument seems to be, "We are scientists, even atheists who could not care less about the shroud. You have been told it is dated 1260. We are not interested in it further. Tough if you are someone who would like further tests."
Click to expand...

How about closer to the truth: you haven't offered any posts demonstrating knowledge as to how radioisotope dating is performed or how the number of samples relate to the statistics that permit a 30AD date to almost completely discarded. Many of your posts indicate concerns and objections that are not true if you bothered to learn more of the facts. These facts are not difficult to learn at a general level- my own science is in a different area, although I depend on radioisotope dating by others, and certainly no one would need to be a scientist to gain my own modest level of understanding or to see the incorrect facts in your statements.

Again I emphasize that if you wish to dispute the vast majority of experts, you should have an even better understanding of these issues than I do, more comparable to their own. Otherwise it is just silly.

So you can post whatever you want, but do not expect that posts that demonstrate a poor understanding of the facts of the Nature paper, and the statistics/methods of the techniques used, to be considered carefully.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The "courage" to put forth debunked nonsense does not further the search for truth in any way.

"Vanillin degradation test" forsooth!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom