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

bobdroege7 said:
Yes, like the statistical model y=mx+b.
Click to expand...
No, not like that. And yes I have developed statistical models and FMEA for protocols for testing Class III medical devices. You can stop bluffing now.

bobdroege7 said:
But you still have to meet the assumptions used in developing your statistical model, when performing investigative science.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing. You’re desperately trying to make your job as a QC inspector relevant to a vague attempt by shroud enthusiasts to do science. It simply isn’t.
 
JayUtah said:
You’re still focusing on the wrong part of their argument. You really don’t have a clue.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, I am focusing on an important part of radiocarbon dating, which you refuse to address.

"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate."

This is what I am focusing on, from:

Radiocarbon dating considerations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
bobdroege7 said:
That is incorrect, I am focusing on an important part of radiocarbon dating, which you refuse to address.
Click to expand...
You’re focusing on the part of the argument that isn’t a problem. I’m pointing to the part of it that is.

bobdroege7 said:
"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate."
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You’re now trying to interject your hypothesis for why there was unexpected variance in the radiocarbon results. Cart before the horse.

Let’s first finish examining your attempt to defend Casabianca et al.
 
JayUtah said:
No, not like that. And yes I have developed statistical models and FMEA for protocols for testing Class III medical devices. You can stop bluffing now.


Not the same thing. You’re desperately trying to make your job as a QC inspector relevant to a vague attempt by shroud enthusiasts to do science. It simply isn’t.
Click to expand...
y=mx+b is a statistical model for measuring the concentration of PAIs to be used in parental drugs.

I am not bluffing, but I think you are.

QC inspector was only a part of my responsibilities in my various jobs. Not in all of them.
 
JayUtah said:
You’re focusing on the part of the argument that isn’t a problem. I’m pointing to the part of it that is.


Irrelevant. You’re now trying to interject your hypothesis for why there was unexpected variance in the radiocarbon results. Cart before the horse.

Let’s first finish examining your attempt to defend Casabianca et al.
Click to expand...

I think you need to discuss what you call irrelevant with radiocarbon dating experts before we can continue this discussion.
 
bobdroege7 said:
y=mx+b is a statistical model for measuring the concentration of PAIs to be used in parental drugs.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean prenatal drugs. FDA requires much more sophisticated models for things like specimen selection. We would never let a mere technician come up with them.

How do you know which column of the chi-squared table to use?
 
I meant parenteral drugs, sorry for the misspelling.

Use the column for the confidence interval you are hoping to achieve.
 
JayUtah said:
You’re trying to change the subject. I won’t let you. How do you know which column of the chi-squared table to use?
Click to expand...

This has been the subject since the start of the discussion, it is the main focus of the debunking of the Damon et al paper.
 
catsmate said:
Sigh. No, I didn't. I didn't mention UCLA, as in 'Los Angeles'.

So you now accept that there is no example of a cloth with the same weave as the Lirey cloth that can be shown to be from the first century Middle East?
That rather scuppers your claim that the Lirey cloth dates from then, doesn't it?

When and where was this fire? And previously you claimed that the markings on the alleged shroud shown in the codex were burns that matched those on the Lirey cloth. Which are from 1532.....

Bollocks. There is no evidence of any magical invisible reweaving on the Lirey cloth
Click to expand...
The Pray Codes is from before the 1532 fire, so those burn holes are from before the 1532 fire.

Still calling it magical invisible reweaving, tell me, how many times has the "Lirey cloth" been mended, darned, or repaired?
 
bobdroege7 said:
This has been the subject since the start of the discussion, it is the main focus of the debunking of the Damon et al paper.
Click to expand...
You told us to focus on the Casabianca paper as the best evidence for why we should reject Damon. You postured it as a mathematical slam-dunk for the question of the rigor in the radiocarbon dating. You solicited rebuttals to it. I'm not finished talking about Casabianca, unless you're willing to concede that it is not an effective answer to Damon.

The question at hand has to do with a table you posted of critical chi-squared values. You insinuated that incorporating a statistical inference into a scientific findings was as simple as reading a value from table. Which column in the table should I be using and why?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You told us to focus on the Casablanca paper as the best evidence for why we should reject Damon. You postured it as a mathematical slam-dunk for the question of the rigor in the radiocarbon dating. You solicited rebuttals to it. I'm not finished talking about Casabianca, unless you're willing to concede that it is not an effective answer to Damon.

The question at hand has to do with a table you posted of critical chi-squared values. You insinuated that incorporating a statistical inference into a scientific findings was as simple as reading a value from table. Which column in the table should I be using and why?
Click to expand...
The Damon paper self debunks, so you have that going for you.

Casabianca is only the latest, and it's the one that uses the original data, which wasn't released until Casabianca submitted FOIA to the British Museum.

I already told you what column to use, the same one Van Haelst and Casabianca used, and Damon ignored. I am assuming you know what row to use.

So I answered your question, will you answer either of my questions that I put to you?

Does the distribution of the radiocarbon data meet the expected distribution or not, and why not?

Is contamination an issue with radiocarbon dating or not, and how would you determine if there is contamination?
 
bobdroege7 said:
y=mx+b is a statistical model for measuring the concentration of PAIs to be used in parental drugs.

I am not bluffing, but I think you are.

QC inspector was only a part of my responsibilities in my various jobs. Not in all of them.
Click to expand...
y=mx+b sounds like it's just the formula for a linear function in Cartesian coordinates. What's the *statistical* model?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
y=mx+b sounds like it's just the formula for a linear function in Cartesian coordinates. What's the *statistical* model?
Click to expand...
It models the response of an instrument to the injection of an aliquot of an unknown sample.

You inject three or more standards of known concentration and by the method of least squares you derive an equation y=mx+b, and then the response of the instrument to the unknown amount allows a calculation of the concentration of the unknown.

Maybe Jay will agree that that is true, maybe not.

Similar to radiocarbon dating, but that is non-linear and has several corrections due to the variations in C-14 concentration in the atmosphere over time. Adjustments are made for nuclear testing and variations in the earth's magnetic field and other issues. Which has produced a calibration curve instead of a linear one.
 
JayUtah said:
Why did they use that column? What makes that the right column to use?
Click to expand...

The desired confidence interval, in this case 95%.

Now answer my questions.

Is the distribution of the data for the radiocarbon dating as expected or not?

Is contamination an issue with radiocarbon dating or not, and how would you measure it?

If you cannot answer those two questions properly then you are not qualified to refute the Casabianca paper.
 
bobdroege7 said:
It models the response of an instrument to the injection of an aliquot of an unknown sample.

You inject three or more standards of known concentration and by the method of least squares you derive an equation y=mx+b, and then the response of the instrument to the unknown amount allows a calculation of the concentration of the unknown.

Maybe Jay will agree that that is true, maybe not.

Similar to radiocarbon dating, but that is non-linear and has several corrections due to the variations in C-14 concentration in the atmosphere over time. Adjustments are made for nuclear testing and variations in the earth's magnetic field and other issues. Which has produced a calibration curve instead of a linear one.
Click to expand...
Right, so it sounds like you're using least-squares methods to construct a best-fit linear curve. That makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom