Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Garrette]

Sigh. I apologize for this post, but I caved and read Jabba's "autobiography" at the link he gave. It's not really an autobiography but more a listing of events in his life, some of which seem quite strange to include on a website meant for public consumption (not that they're embarrassing, just of little interest to someone not family).

Two things struck me:

1. Item #15 says this: "Designed and carried out 'Cutting Edge' experiment in ESP."

2. Item #43 says this in regard to his "Comprehensives" for his PhD (discipline not given): "Did well on multiple choice portion of 'comprehensives' but flunked essay portion..." (The ellipsis is in the original).


So..... Jabba conducted a cutting edge ESP experiment. I wonder what his findings were.

And he failed his PhD exams (I supposed he is now "ABD," but he doesn't specifically say that). Interestingly, he failed the essay portion. That seems to jibe with experience here in that he can't seem to put together a cohesive argument, certainly not one with evidence to back it up and certainly not one that is logically sound.

Ah, well. I'd like to say I look forward to his posts upon his return from his visit with family out west, but I doubt such optimism would be rewarded.

 

[pgwenthold]

2. Item #43 says this in regard to his "Comprehensives" for his PhD (discipline not given): "Did well on multiple choice portion of 'comprehensives' but flunked essay portion..." (The ellipsis is in the original).

I am trying to even figure out what this is supposed to mean.

In terms of a PhD, comprehensive knowledge generally is a prerequisite for being admitted to candidacy. So not passing your comps means you didn't get very far. And saying you passed the "multiple choice portion" but flunked the essay portion is pretty consistent with what you'd expect from what we've seen. As you note, given his efforts here, it's pretty obvious that he has no communication skills, and couldn't explain an answer out of a paper bag.

Faculty aren't stupid. They can tell when people are clueless.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Faculty aren't stupid. They can tell when people are clueless.

I know someone who worked for several years in an I/T role at a university who would beg to disagree with that assessment.

 

[zooterkin]

I am trying to even figure out what this is supposed to mean.

In terms of a PhD, comprehensive knowledge generally is a prerequisite for being admitted to candidacy. So not passing your comps means you didn't get very far. And saying you passed the "multiple choice portion" but flunked the essay portion is pretty consistent with what you'd expect from what we've seen. As you note, given his efforts here, it's pretty obvious that he has no communication skills, and couldn't explain an answer out of a paper bag.

Faculty aren't stupid. They can tell when people are clueless.

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that a PhD, on any subject, would have a multiple choice portion.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that a PhD, on any subject, would have a multiple choice portion.

I was thinking that too.

But more to the point. If we all work together we can metaphorically pull the plug on this thread and let it die on its own.

 

[wollery]

I checked the multiple choice thing, because it struck me as odd.

Apparently, in some countries, you need to pass an exam(s) on the general subject matter of your PhD area in order to get your PhD, usually before the end of the second year and often during the first year.

 

[Gao]

Re #5: No. I have a choice also; and mine is the blood issue. We'll do both. It'll all work out in the end, only slower.
--- Jabba

But it already worked out. The C14 dating seals the date. Even if you proved the shroud can cure cancer, shoot laser beams, and couldn't be reproduced by modern means, it would have no impact on the fact that it's from the 13th century at the earliest.

 

[pgwenthold]

I checked the multiple choice thing, because it struck me as odd.

Apparently, in some countries, you need to pass an exam(s) on the general subject matter of your PhD area in order to get your PhD, usually before the end of the second year and often during the first year.

Oh, we have cumulative exams here in the States in my dept, that students must pass before they past their second year. And if they do that, they must pass an oral exam in the beginning of the third year before they are admitted into PhD candidacy.

I've written exams that have had multiple choice questions on them, so one might call that the "multiple choice section." And had students "pass" it while failing the "essay" section. Similarly, I've had students fail it and pass the essay section. Neither passed the exam, of course.

That's why I didn't question the concept in principle (although it was never formally considered "multiple choice section" and "essay section") and just pointed out that passing the multiple choice section but failing the essay section is not all that impressive, considering that these types of exams are considered the minimum amount of mastery one needs to even qualify for doing a PhD.

You fail your comps, you aren't even eligible to try. You could put that right up there with Navin Johnson's Astronaut Application form (he failed every part except "name.") Wow, so Jabba failed out of grad school. Put that on your resume for everyone to see!

 

[pakeha]

^
Interesting, but only mildly, except to show 'twisting' information is part of Jabba's track record.
Like the 'cutting edge' ESP experiment, I daresay.
Or that invention.

In any case, it has no bearing on the dating of the TS to the time of the Anti-pope Clement.

 

[IanS]

Well it appears that Jabba has given up. Which is unfortunate, but which is nevertheless probably inevitable if he could not, or would not, admit that he has no genuine scientific paper which has ever disputed the C14.

As far as any PhD is concerned, and just for background info -

- in the UK, science PhD’s simply involve you first applying for an advertised PhD position in a university research lab, ie just like applying for a job. That invariably means an interview with the prof at the head of the lab. And then if you are lucky enough to be offered the position, you spend 3 funded years trying to research whatever problem was set out in the original PhD proposal. And at the end of that time you write up all the relevant aspects of your 3 years research into a hard-bound volume or “thesis”, of about 200 to 400 pages, typically with at least 150 refs (mine was about 300 pages with about 300 refs), and then you take an aural exam being questioned about everything in your thesis for several hours by several examiners inc. as the main examiner a world renowned expert in that particular field, and that usually lasts from 2 to 4 hours or more (mine was about 3 hours).

During that time the principal “expert” examiner will usually go though the entire thesis from start to finish asking you how and why you did various experiments and how and why you reached various conclusions etc., inc. asking you to explain all sorts of related fundamental science, and even asking you to reproduce things like extensive calculations in quantum mechanics on sheets of A4 etc.

I’ve never known an aural exam (called a “viva”) in which the PhD candidate did not get at least some very difficult questions which became tough going if not impossible for him/her to answer at some stages, IOW it can, and usually does, become deliberately quite uncomfortable in parts.

 

[dafydd]

Ladewig,
Re #1: Thanks.
Re #2: You're very welcome.
Re #3: Only that it might make someone think a little more positive about my claims...
Re #4: Thanks again.
Re #5: No. I have a choice also; and mine is the blood issue. We'll do both. It'll all work out in the end, only slower.
--- Jabba

If you go any slower you will be going backwards.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

- I'm back!!!

- I'll try to stick to the carbon dating for now.

- Just to catch us up -- so far, I've suggested 4 papers that question the carbon dating results.
- http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf -- Rogers
- http://uniroma.academia.edu/Emanuel...ting_for_the_radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud -- Valencia
- http://shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf -- Brown
- http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf – Benford & Marino

- You guys have discounted all 4. You believe that none of these are really "scientific" or "independent." I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.
- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself.

- For now, I'll just add a couple of videos, along with an article that goes with one of the videos.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOusGOFVdZ0&feature=youtu.be – Richard Dawkins
- http://holyshroud.tumblr.com/post/21855273186/the-night-of-the-shroud-premiered-in-spain-by-rai-at -- Night of the Shroud, article
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKXt-IZx-k -- Night of the Shroud, video


- As you know, I believe that, between the direct evidence and the indirect evidence, there is plenty of doubt as to the validity of the carbon dating. I'll keep looking for more indirect evidence that the dating has to be wrong. But, this might take awhile, as I need to find, or re-find, sources supporting intermediate claims supportive of the ultimate claim of interest here -- that the carbon dating is not valid.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

I began to take the bait to look at your links, Jabba, but two things stopped me:

1. You still haven't responded to specific comments about your earlier link. If you won't do that, then it is the same as admitting that you can't do that, and so you have no credibility.

2. I looked up the credentials of Benford and Marino (co-authors of your fourth paper). They want to discuss carbon dating yet neither of them has any relevant credentials. Benford is a nurse who promotes "energy healing" which is absolute hoakum. Marino is a monk whose only academic qualifications are in theology. Their complaints about the C14 data have no more standing than my inability to understand quantum physics.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba[/I];8345565] I'll keep looking for more indirect evidence that the dating has to be wrong. But, this might take awhile, as I need to find, or re-find, sources supporting intermediate claims supportive of the ultimate claim of interest here -- that the carbon dating is not valid.

--- Jabba

1. The dating "has" to be wrong? Not interested in facts, I take it? (I've known that for a while, actually)

2. Do you have any idea how pathetic your argument is? You've been studying the shroud for decades according to you; you have a website dedicated to it; you created a forum specifically to debate it. You've been on this site for months proclaiming the evidence is overwhelming. And yet you don't have your sources at hand?!

You've failed these comprehensives, too, I'm afraid.

 

[pakeha]

Hi, Jabba.

"- You guys have discounted all 4. You believe that none of these are really "scientific" or "independent." I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.
- But then, as far as I can tell, the only scientific article you guys have supporting your case is the Nature article itself."


Jabba, it's not that we 'believe' those 4 sources are neither scientific nor independant.
It has been explained to you again and again why those sources are neither scientific nor independant.
Do you see the difference between those two sentences?

Also, if you can't explain "just how scientific and independent " your sources are, isn't it time to learn what the articles you cite are about?

 

[Marduk]

- I, of course, believe that they are more scientific and independent than do you guys, though, just how scientific and independent they are, I can't really say.

so something you can't quantify has more validity than something which is scientifically valid, is that supposed to be a credible argument ?

 

[Theofrak]

A group called "Mission of the Shroud" put a full-page ad in today's newspaper, showing some of the 'miracles' revealed in their studies of the Shroud of Turin. Their studies, near as I can determine, involve highly imaginative inspections of close-up photos of smudges. They do the same think to rocks, skies and whatever they can find.

In these images, they claim to see depictions of Jesus, Mary, the Bible, a Chalice, and so-on and so-forth.

As for me, I can't see a thing. Even in the photos they've helpfully labelled, all I see is a smudge. I suspect it's either pareidolia, or it's one of those Magic-Eye things (which I normally have no trouble seeing).

Anyway, have a look and see what you see.
Mission of the Shroud photos page

I was also amused to note that this group of overly-optimistic smudge-gazers is local.

Human beings are biologically wired to see faces, even where they don't exist.

 

[Ladewig]

Jabba, please stop and respond to the previous posts before doing anything else.

These are points that must be addressed.

Absolutely no forward progress can be made until you demonstrate that you understand how scientific validity is measured.

 

[Marduk]

Human beings are biologically wired to see faces, even where they don't exist.

I see they haven't included Jesus toast or that dogs ass where he appeared
http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/jesus-image-found-in-dogs-butt.html

 

[SezMe]

Thanks, Marduk, I really needed to see that.