• 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.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

JayUtah said:
And if you think that's what happened, then how can you reconcile that with the mutually exclusive hypothesis regarding the patch?
Click to expand...
Yes, it could be one or the other, even though they are mutually exclusive.

Which is better than claiming the chi^2 test doesn't matter.
 
Mojo said:
No, because that doesn't give the result bobdroege7 wants.
Click to expand...
I think its fair game to question this issue, as long as we are reasonable about it. I mean, they had textile experts on site when the samples were taken to make sure exactly something like this *didnt* happen.

I get that the church wouldn't want the sample to be coming from across the face, on the off chance this was the real deal, so they picked an inobtrusive place to sample, so as not to deface it. OK, fine. But literally right on the edge where they knew foreign thread was woven in after the fact? Maybe they had no other real choice, but still...
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, and they are human, and can make mistakes from time to time.
Click to expand...
No one here is claiming infallibility. However you insisted that people who rejected your interpretation of the scientific findings did so because they had no proper understanding of or respect for the scientific method. From a position of purported expertise, you claimed that the sampling method used in these experiments was improper since it was not randomized. There are situations such as production control where the proper sampling method is a random sample of statistically sufficient size. This presumes such things as intended homogeneity of the population. However, in forensic scientific examinations, a random sample is not the best method. You seem to be trying to bluster your way along.
 
bobdroege7 said:
There was a lot of patching done at various times, the ones I can document were from the 16th to the 19th centuries.

Some were better at their work than others.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that one of them was in the area the sample was taken from?
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, it could be one or the other, even though they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Which one are you claiming it is? If you're going to accuse your critics of lying because they can't guess what you're trying to argue, it would seem important to clearly state which alternative you mean to promote.

bobdroege7 said:
Which is better than claiming the chi^2 test doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You are cherry-picking elements from each of two mutually exclusive hypotheses that purport in different ways to explain the carbon-14 findings, and you seem to expect them to come together in some strong coherent whole.
 
JayUtah said:
But according to you, the cloth that was sent for carbon-14 dating was not anything that was on the shroud but was instead something the archbishop of Turin substituted in a back room. Do you understand that you cannot simultaneously make the claim regarding the archbishop and then also post evidence from other examinations of shroud material and imagine that they add up to some sort of coherent whole?


Okay, one more time...

In response to your accusation that people are lying with respect to what you claim, I asked these questions :—

to which your only semi-answer was,


It is a bad-faith argument to accuse people of lying when they are making good-faith efforts to ascertain what you are actually claiming. Acknowledging that the Turin shroud in general exhibits clear evidence of patching throughout its life span does not provide answers to the specific questions I am asking. Therefore I will ask them again in hopes of finally eliciting some coherence and honesty from you.
  1. Do you claim there was a patch?
    Ostensibly you've answered yes to this question, but the question specifically wants to know whether you are claiming the material excised for carbon-14 dating was a patch. I don't want you to wave your hands generally at the history of the shroud.
  2. Do you claim the experts specifically looking to avoid a patch missed the patch that was allegedly excised for carbon-14 dating?
  3. Do you claim that material from this alleged patch is what caused the carbon-14 dating to be for the wrong time, or to make the results heterogeneous, or both?
An explicit yes or no answer to each of these questions would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
OK, I will answer your three questions, and I remind you and the rest, I never claimed the patch was invisible. Those who have made that claim are indeed lying, and I can name names. If the shoe fits, wear it.

1. Yes, I claim there is a patch where the radiocarbon samples were taken.

2. Yes, but you need to support your claim that experts actually looked for patches in the area that was cut off for sampling. The patching was pretty good, and existing photos of the samples have been examined by experts who say that there is evidence of patching in the area. I can't tell, but then, I am not a textile expert. So if there were experts examining the area sampled, they missed the patch. It is possible that experts were not consulted when it was decided to cut the sample.

3. Both
 
JayUtah said:
Which one are you claiming it is? If you're going to accuse your critics of lying because they can't guess what you're trying to argue, it would seem important to clearly state which alternative you mean to promote.


Irrelevant. You are cherry-picking elements from each of two mutually exclusive hypotheses that purport in different ways to explain the carbon-14 findings, and you seem to expect them to come together in some strong coherent whole.
Click to expand...
I accused them of lying because they claimed I posted something that I absolutely did not post. A poster accused me of claiming there was an invisible patch, I made no such claim.

At least one poster accused me of claiming something I did not claim.

There is the word or in the English language, perhaps you have heard of it. You are correct, it can't be both, or could it? The samples could be from a patch and the Archbishop could have switched the samples.

But then, I actually retracted that statement about the Archbishop switching the samples, and you missed it.
 
bobdroege7 said:
OK, I will answer your three questions, and I remind you and the rest, I never claimed the patch was invisible. Those who have made that claim are indeed lying, and I can name names. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Click to expand...
They presented evidence that you were effectively making that claim. That is why I asked repeatedly for you to clarify it.

bobdroege7 said:
2. Yes, but...
Click to expand...
No. Now you're just speculating and trying to shift the burden of proof.
 
bobdroege7 said:
There is the word or in the English language, perhaps you have heard of it. You are correct, it can't be both, or could it? The samples could be from a patch and the Archbishop could have switched the samples.

But then, I actually retracted that statement about the Archbishop switching the samples, and you missed it.
Click to expand...
Link to the post where you retracted it and I will concede the point. I asked you fairly recently whether you could reconcile the patch claim with the archbishop claim, and you simply reiterated the claim that the archbishop switched the specimen in order to thwart attempts at authentication. You did not attempt a reconciliation and you did not remind me then that you had conceded the archbishop claim.
 
JayUtah said:
They presented evidence that you were effectively making that claim. That is why I asked repeatedly for you to clarify it.


No. Now you're just speculating and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
Well, well, well, then they were putting words in my mouth.

Science is not about proof, and I have provided evidence for a patch.
 
bobdroege7 said:
No you didn't, you asked me what my claims are.
Click to expand...
I asked you which of two specific hypotheses you were advocating. I'm not asking for a soup-to-nuts recitation of your presentation. I did not ask about the Damon paper and I have no interest in what you think of it.

bobdroege7 said:
You are lacking coherence, which you are accusing me of.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I presented a clear list of yes-or-no questions in an attempt to understand which of two mutually exclusive hypotheses you were advocating as an explanation for the radiocarbon dating. And it has been the devil of a time getting those yes-or-no answers. And I still don't have them.
 
JayUtah said:
Link to the post where you retracted it and I will concede the point. I asked you fairly recently whether you could reconcile the patch claim with the archbishop claim, and you simply reiterated the claim that the archbishop switched the specimen in order to thwart attempts at authentication. You did not attempt a reconciliation and you did not remind me then that you had conceded the archbishop claim.
Click to expand...
Post 619 of this thread.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, everything is heterogeneous to an extent, all the samples tested show heterogeneity to some extent, but for the shroud examples it was too high.
Click to expand...
No. This is simply ill-informed nonsense.
bobdroege7 said:
Then you look for a reason.

And then you find that the sampled area was part of a patch or a reweave.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is no evidence for this.
bobdroege7 said:
Then you find that there was cotton woven into the sampled pieces.
Click to expand...
Also not true.
bobdroege7 said:
Which makes the samples not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
bobdroege7 said:
You are resorting to ad hominem attacks, which means you don't have a case.
Click to expand...
You appear not to understand what "ad hominem" actually means.

I have demonstrated that your supposed "arguments" are rubbish, not standing up to scrutiny, that you simply don't understand the material you liberally seagull in this forum.

So, why not state, clearly and coherently, what is your theory regarding the Lirey cloth. And likewise how, you believe, the radiocarbon dating was in error. No nonsense about magic patches, try and create a cohesive narrative.
 
Thermal said:
I was looking at it. They acknowledge big and bold that the sample was taken from the area where the Holland cloth backing was attached. Which had to be removed to get the sample. And there were a few (and just a few) stray cotton fibers.

Really not seeing why these fibers are not assumed to be stray residues from the thread which sewed the backing on.
Click to expand...
I believe @bobdroege7 doesn't expect people to actually read the links he posts. He certainly doesn't seem to bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom