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

JayUtah said:
It's even dumber than that. The premise is, "The radiocarbon dating is untrustworthy because the investigators did not consider all the speculated magical effects of the Resurrection on the process." There's a reason this is self-published.
Click to expand...
They should write a play. I already have a title: "The Effect of Pie-in-the-Sky Miracles On Gamma Rays"
 
Reformed Offlian said:
They should write a play. I already have a title: "The Effect of Pie-in-the-Sky Miracles On Gamma Rays"
Click to expand...
That's exactly on point. All these purportedly scholarly offerings fall into a pattern and its corollary. In most, the author is well-qualified in some sort of scientific discipline and has distinguished himself in that discipline generally having nothing to do with religion or relics. The insinuation is that whatever these people do or say on any subject must be taken as well-supported science because of the stature and reputation of the claimant. That's actually an ad hominem argument—or more grammatically stated: a propter hominem argument.

The papers themselves couple a relatively unremarkable scientific expression (e.g., electron microscopy) with a contentious or dubious proposition. Sometimes the dubious statement is the premise. Sometimes it is the conclusion. But it's a motte-and-bailey pattern either way. If you correctly identify the contentious element and contend it, the rejoinder wants to underscore the unremarkable scientific presentation. The claimant wants desperately for the rebuttal to be something other than it should be. They don't want it to be that these otherwise or formerly eminent scientists are actually proposing something far outside scientific rigor. They don't want it to be that the fancy diagrams, equations, micrographs, and tables is camouflage for what is essentially a statement of belief or an argument from vibes.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
I've cited several scientific articles that discuss this evidence.

Anyway, here is yet another scientist who has concluded the Shroud is authentic: Dr. Osvaldo Negrini Neto, a physicist and forensic scientist at the Instituto Forense de Tecnologia in São Paulo, Brazil.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief, another engineer spouting nonsense outside his area of experience. That "paper", unpublished and unreviewed is littered with lies

There is no evidence of a magically invisible patch on the Lirey cloth.
The image on the cloth is not "engraved".
The image has been reproduced.
There was no analysis performed at Los Almos.
The Lirey cloth is not the most studied object
 
bobdroege7 said:
You are not able to answer the questions in my post.
Click to expand...
What questions? Your post was littered with nonsense.
bobdroege7 said:
It does not take a degree in statistics to understand radioactive decay.
Click to expand...
And yet you clearly don't understand.
bobdroege7 said:
And you have nothing but slurs, adhoms, and nonsense.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Now what about your claims.
1. Where are your examples of first century Middle Eastern woven cloth showing a herringbone weave.
2. When was the Lirey cloth damaged in the manner you claim is shown in the illustration shown in the Pray Codex?
3. Do you still claim there was a secret radiocarbon test performed on the Lirey cloth? If so, by whom, when and where.
 
Hey, is this thing going on still? May I repeat my question made at least a decade ago?
(I may)

Let us assume that the shroud is actually about 2K years old.
Let us also assume that it is actually a burial shroud.
Let us further assume that it is in fact the burial shroud of a crucified person.

Even if all these rather unlikely assumption were true, what does that prove?
It proves what we already know: That crucifixion was a common mode of execution of the era, and that someone was crucified.

Hans
 
There's an easy explanation for the Shroud. Back in ~33AD, historical Jesus was crucified. A VEC* painted a big piece of cloth to look like a miraculous burial wrap bearing Big J's image. He did this because he recognized a sure winner, and he knew that the oncoming cult would need relics; it's all part of the religion game.

So the Shroud really & truly is 2,000 years old, while being completely spurious. Yay! Everybody wins!

Except the religionists, but hell, they always think they're right no matter what. They've got the rest of us whipped before the game even starts.

* Very Early Christian. Also a Very Early Byzantine, judging by his ironing-board conception of anatomy.
 
JayUtah said:
It's ongoing, except that you want to talk about something else rather than allowing me to complete it. My rebuttal requires you to answer the questions I ask about Casabianca's work, your understanding and interpretation of it, and your basis for advocating it.
Click to expand...

Frankly, your questions were irrelevant, you seem stuck on the idea that you need qualifications to debunk Damon et al. It's the science and data.


You are just making adhom attacks on Casabianca, instead of addressing the science and data in their paper.

My understanding and interpretation are irrelevant.

Sorry, but you said this

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

in response to me saying "Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate"

I can only conclude that your knowledge in this area is insufficient to debunk the Casabianca paper.
 
catsmate said:
What questions? Your post was littered with nonsense.

And yet you clearly don't understand.

Nope.

Now what about your claims.
1. Where are your examples of first century Middle Eastern woven cloth showing a herringbone weave.
2. When was the Lirey cloth damaged in the manner you claim is shown in the illustration shown in the Pray Codex?
3. Do you still claim there was a secret radiocarbon test performed on the Lirey cloth? If so, by whom, when and where.
Click to expand...

The shroud was not woven in Palestine, probably Italy, due to the twist of the fibers.

Before the Pray Codex was written, before 1200.

T.W. CASE, The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 dating fiasco, White Horse Press, Cincinnati (OH), USA 1996, pp. 75-77; W. MEACHAM, The Rape of the Turin Shroud, Lulu.com, 2005, pp. 102-103.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
What do Casabianca et al say about sample 4? Damon et al. derived both a similar age to the Shroud, and also a similar measurement uncertainty. Do Casabianca et al conclude that sample 4 is also heterogenous?
Click to expand...
First question,

"The hypothesis of a statistical significance only due to some difference in measurements among the laboratories is weakened by the fact that the results were correct and consistent for the three control samples"

Second question: No, Casabianca does not conclude sample 4 is heterogeneous.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Frankly, your questions were irrelevant...
Click to expand...
In whose judgment? It's my rebuttal. I get to say which questions are relevant to my rebuttal.

bobdroege7 said:
you seem stuck on the idea that you need qualifications to debunk Damon et al. It's the science and data.
Click to expand...
Qualifications matter in science. Casabianca has no qualifications or experience in the relevant sciences. That's an important point. His coauthors have qualifications only in statistics, but not in radiocarbon dating or archaeology. The Casabianca paper is not well received in the field. That's a fact. I'm attempting to tell you why that is.

bobdroege7 said:
You are just making adhom attacks on Casabianca, instead of addressing the science and data in their paper.
Click to expand...
I am very much attempting to address the science and the data in the Casabianca paper. The paper attempts to make an argument purely from statistics—the only field in which at least some of the authors are qualified. I'm attempting to point out why that statistical argument is not convincing to people qualified in radiocarbon dating and archaeology. Don't you think that's the least bit relevant?

bobdroege7 said:
My understanding and interpretation are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No.

All throughout this thread you have maintained that little if any of the contravening evidence is important because the carbon-14 heterogeneity is the trump card. The chi-squared claims from Casabianca are the smoking gun. You fringe-reset on it. You pivot to it every time you are cornered. You consider it evidence that cannot be rationally refuted. It's frankly almost all you talk about. Therefore we're going to explore your understanding of it, to see if you understand how important it really is.

More importantly, I've already given you my rebuttal of Casabianca, and you didn't understand it. So to continue, exploring your understanding of the underlying statistical claims is essential to determining whether you're capable of understanding the rebuttal. You can cooperate with a test of your understanding of Casabianca or you can concede that you are unequal to the task of defending him.

Choose.

bobdroege7 said:
I can only conclude that your knowledge in this area is insufficient to debunk the Casabianca paper.
Click to expand...
...says the person who sent us to an irrelevant explanation of Pearson and is now frantically trying to avoid answering questions about statistics.

It's a very simple question: where did the 95% confidence interval come from? Why do Casabianca et al. consider it the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint. Earlier you said that Casabianca used the 95% confidence interval because Damon et al. used the 95% confidence interval. But that's not quite true. While they reported the chi-squared test for outliers according to the 95% interval in accordance with Ward & Wilson, Damon also reported the dating interval to the 68% confidence interval and found that while the date range was a little larger, the dates all fell within it. Why 95%? Why 68%? Why those oddly specific numbers?

Now anyone who has had even first-year statistics can tell you why. You can't, and that's a huge red flag for the question of whether you understand either Damon or Casabianca enough to determine which one is more credible. And when you think about it, you can understand why a bunch of statisticians would underscore those particular numbers. But the answer is more than just chi-squared. I'll explain it to you as soon as you stop bluffing.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
Frankly, your questions were irrelevant, you seem stuck on the idea that you need qualifications to debunk Damon et al. It's the science and data.


You are just making adhom attacks on Casabianca, instead of addressing the science and data in their paper.

My understanding and interpretation are irrelevant.

Sorry, but you said this

"Irrelevant. You’re now trying to interject your hypothesis for why there was unexpected variance in the radiocarbon results. Cart before the horse."
Click to expand...
Strawman,
bobdroege7 said:
I can only conclude that your knowledge in this area is insufficient to debunk the Casabianca paper.
Click to expand...
Good grief this is pathetic.
bobdroege7 said:
The shroud was not woven in Palestine, probably Italy, due to the twist of the fibers.
Click to expand...
So you're changing your mind again......
Evidence for this assertion? Date, place, similar fabric.
bobdroege7 said:
Before the Pray Codex was written, before 1200.
Click to expand...
When? Where is your evidence for this assertion?
bobdroege7 said:
T.W. CASE, The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 dating fiasco, White Horse Press, Cincinnati (OH), USA 1996, pp. 75-77; W. MEACHAM, The Rape of the Turin Shroud, Lulu.com, 2005, pp. 102-103.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief I've already debunked those claims, as you well know.
I note that you refuse, again, to address the impossibility of the claimed secret radiocarbon testing, i.e the sample size and the non-existence of the supposed testing facility.
 
JayUtah said:
In whose judgment? It's my rebuttal. I get to say which questions are relevant to my rebuttal.


Qualifications matter in science. Casabianca has no qualifications or experience in the relevant sciences. That's an important point. His coauthors have qualifications only in statistics, but not in radiocarbon dating or archaeology. The Casabianca paper is not well received in the field. That's a fact. I'm attempting to tell you why that is.


I am very much attempting to address the science and the data in the Casabianca paper. The paper attempts to make an argument purely from statistics—the only field in which at least some of the authors are qualified. I'm attempting to point out why that statistical argument is not convincing to people qualified in radiocarbon dating and archaeology. Don't you think that's the least bit relevant?


No.

All throughout this thread you have maintained that little if any of the contravening evidence is important because the carbon-14 heterogeneity is the trump card. The chi-squared claims from Casabianca are the smoking gun. You fringe-reset on it. You pivot to it every time you are cornered. You consider it evidence that cannot be rationally refuted. It's frankly almost all you talk about. Therefore we're going to explore your understanding of it, to see if you understand how important it really is.

More importantly, I've already given you my rebuttal of Casabianca, and you didn't understand it. So to continue, exploring your understanding of the underlying statistical claims is essential to determining whether you're capable of understanding the rebuttal. You can cooperate with a test of your understanding of Casabianca or you can concede that you are unequal to the task of defending him.

Choose.


...says the person who sent us to an irrelevant explanation of Pearson and is now frantically trying to avoid answering questions about statistics.

It's a very simple question: where did the 95% confidence interval come from? Why do Casabianca et al. consider it the gold standard?

I'll give you a hint. Earlier you said that Casabianca used the 95% confidence interval because Damon et al. used the 95% confidence interval. But that's not quite true. While they reported the chi-squared test for outliers according to the 95% interval in accordance with Ward & Wilson, Damon also reported the dating interval to the 68% confidence interval and found that while the date range was a little larger, the dates all fell within it. Why 95%? Why 68%? Why those oddly specific numbers?

Now anyone who has had even first-year statistics can tell you why. You can't, and that's a huge red flag for the question of whether you understand either Damon or Casabianca enough to determine which one is more credible. And when you think about it, you can understand why a bunch of statisticians would underscore those particular numbers. But the answer is more than just chi-squared. I'll explain it to you as soon as you stop bluffing.
Click to expand...
First, why is homogeneity important in radiocarbon dating, you claimed it was irrelevant. Care to revise that statement.

Second, if you have already debunked Casabianca, why did you claim you are still working on it? Which is it? Still working or debunked?
I still haven't seen your rebuttal of it.

Are you sure you know why the 95% confidence interval is used? I do, and don't tell me I don't. I have not taken any statistics courses, all the statistics I know I learned in other science classes and on the job.

Damon et al are suspect for other reasons than their posting a failing chi^2 test without pointing that out. They withheld the data for almost 30 years until Casabianca used a FOIA to get the data. That damages their credibility a lot.
 
bobdroege7 said:
First, why is homogeneity important in radiocarbon dating, you claimed it was irrelevant. Care to revise that statement.
Click to expand...
I said that homogeneity does not play the role in radiocarbon dating that you seem to insist upon. It's not relevant in the way you interpret Casabianca to require. I maintain that. The Ward & Wilson test identifies outliers. What one does with those outliers is a matter of specialized understanding that neither you nor Casabianca seems to regard.

You might be interested in knowing that the Ward & Wilson test has been superseded by a completely different method based on Bayesian inference. What implications do you think that should have for the evaluation of radiocarbon dating results?

bobdroege7 said:
Second, if you have already debunked Casabianca, why did you claim you are still working on it?
Click to expand...
Because you didn't understand it the first time around. So we have to try again. I could just say it's rebutted and that the rebuttal clearly goes over your head. But that would be dismissive, mean-spirited, and unsatisfying. Therefore I'm leading you through the preconceptions through which you are wrongly perceiving the logic of the rebuttal so that there can be some hope of progress. You wrongly think I'm making an ad hominem attack on Casabianca. I think this is because you believe the premises of Casabianca's argument are self-evident truths and may not be questioned.

bobdroege7 said:
Are you sure you know why the 95% confidence interval is used?
Click to expand...
Yes.

bobdroege7 said:
I do, and don't tell me I don't.
Click to expand...
Then tell us why Casabianca used it and believed that it was the right thing to do.

bobdroege7 said:
I have not taken any statistics courses, all the statistics I know I learned in other science classes and on the job.
Click to expand...
I have taken several statistics classes, had my understanding of it tested in a rigorous licensing exam, and remain liable to the public for my ongoing mastery of it. As others have said, you seem to have a rote, mechanical understanding of statistics. That would be consistent with the way you say you learned. You treat some of these parameters as if they were rigid tolerances or specifications in a commercial process. I maintain that your approach is improper for the purposes of discussing Damon and Casabianca. Therefore I'm asking you questions designed to challenge some of the preconceptions you may be operating under and which prevent you from understanding the flaws in Casabianca's paper. Or stated another way, I am teaching you what you didn't learn by not taking statistics classes, and doing so Socratically so that you teach yourself.

bobdroege7 said:
Damon et al are suspect for other reasons...
Click to expand...
Don't change the subject. The subject is Casabianca's paper. The question on the table is why Casabianca used the 95% confidence interval. When you answer that, we'll move on to my next questions.
 
I note, with no surprise whatever, that @bobdroege7 has failed to respond to my request for
1. Evidence of the creation of the Lirey cloth in Italy, such as examples of similar weaves from there that can reliably be shown to be of first century origin. Some reason why such cloth would be used as a burial shroud for an irreverent rabble-rouser in Roman Judea would be nice too.....

2. Evidence for a pre-1190 fire that damaged the Lirey cloth in exactly the same places as the 1532 fire

3. Evidence of a secret radiocarbon testing of the cloth, preferably with a sample of suitable size and an AMS facility that actually existed at the time of the claimed testing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom