Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Mashuna]

Dave,

- Before I get started -- somewhere above I had said that my "offer" still stands. Obviously, that's the wrong word. It should have been request," or even "plea." I think that you can solve the basic problem that this thread has.

I think that only you can solve the basic problem that this thread has, Jabba.

 

[catsmate]

16.2 has been dealt with. It's been pointed out that alterations to sampling protocols aren't uncommon in science, despite what you want to think. Further, the alterations are incredibly superficial--the number of samples was reduced. NO ONE who's looked at the data objectively has complained about the alterations in the protocols.

The only actual changes to the initially agreed protocol for the sampling were:

• the presence of laboratory observers at the sampling of the shroud for analysis
• the removal of a larger than originally planned section of cloth, half of which was retained for additional analysis if needed
• the not quite simultaneous analyses of the samples by the laboratories
• the provision of three, rather than two, control sample of known age and origin to each lab

None of these in any way invalidate, or even cast any doubt, on the radiocarbon dating, except in the mind of desperate shroudies.

In summary:

 

[Akhenaten]

Effective Debate

<some snippage>

Appears to be completely beyond you.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

...Do you have some thoughts as to where one might obtain the materials for an invisible patch that so closely matches the surrounding cloth that it completely fooled experts that selected the patch area in 1988 and it again completely fooled the experts in 2002 when the shroud when the last shroud restoration effort was undertaken? My guess here, is that you intend to rely on the work of Rogers who claimed to have detected differences in the patch material and the rest of the shroud...

Dave,
- There are various papers that talk about, or around, that issue -- and when I get to the digging, I'll see what I can regain or find in them, but as implied previously, I don't think that they have a whole lot to offer...
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions, before returning to the time-consuming digging and elaboration.
--- Jabba

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dave,
- There are various papers that talk about, or around, that issue -- and when I get to the digging, I'll see what I can regain or find in them, but as implied previously, I don't think that they have a whole lot to offer...
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions, before returning to the time-consuming digging and elaboration.
--- Jabba

That's one thing I love about this thread. You're convinced that your beliefs are correct, but you have no idea what your actual beliefs are.

 

[catsmate]

- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.
- When I choose, not only does everyone fuss at me for my answer, they fuss at me for what I don't answer. With you deciding what I should answer next, they'd have to fuss at you for that second complaint. That would be a big help.
- And, I would begin piling up answers to your approval...
--- Jabba

Here's my question to you; when are you going to stop lying, evading. re-posting debunked pseudoscience and actually present some evidence for your claims?

 

[dafydd]

Here's my question to you; when are you going to stop lying, evading. re-posting debunked pseudoscience and actually present some evidence for your claims?

He can't do that because the evidence does not exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

<snip>

Missed this, did you?

Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.

Get with the programme, Jabba.

 

[Dinwar]

The only actual changes to the initially agreed protocol for the sampling were:

• the presence of laboratory observers at the sampling of the shroud for analysis
• the removal of a larger than originally planned section of cloth, half of which was retained for additional analysis if needed
• the not quite simultaneous analyses of the samples by the laboratories
• the provision of three, rather than two, control sample of known age and origin to each lab

None of these in any way invalidate, or even cast any doubt, on the radiocarbon dating, except in the mind of desperate shroudies.

In summary:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_162724fbe8b99a1548.png[/qimg]

I thought there was something about reducing the number of labs getting samples as well. Not that it makes the C14 dating any less reliable--sending it to ONE lab would be sufficient, particularly given the number of control samples being sent with the actual sample--I just want to make sure I'm remembering correctly.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,

- Before I get started --
<snippage>

Dave,
- Here, I'm running into the need, or the urge, to rush -- which does cause problems -- but, I'm hoping to "touch on" answers to your different questions,
<more snippage>

This after 54 pages and 2130 posts.

I dread to think what this mess of a thread would look like if you were taking your time.

 

[Olowkow]

- Sorry about that, Dave -- but, the offer still stands.
- Obviously, everyone would still ask or say whatever they wish -- you'd just choose the q/c for me to answer next.
- ....
--- Jabba

I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706937/

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I just can't help hearing this in the back of my mind:

Me too, but I was too lazy to quote it properly so I went the Cheech & Chong, "Dave's not here" route.

 

[Olowkow]

The bottom line struck me as sooo appropriate:

[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706937/"]HAL

: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

[/URL]

I didn't have the heart to quote the rest of the dialog, which is also apt.

 

[Akhenaten]

I didn't have the heart to quote the rest of the dialog, which is also apt.

Some of it is chillingly appropriate.

"Look Dave I can't put my finger on it but I sense something strange about him."​

Eerie.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating

Have you taken any time to read through the responses to Rogers work and the criticism of Rogers work even by pro-authenticity advocates. Here's one long critique of Roger's work:

http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

From the above article:
Rather than attempt a broad outline of what you intend to prove again, I think you might focus on a specific point that you wish to make. In this case, a specific statement by you of what you believe to be a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud would be relevant I think.

Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.
- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba

 

[Olowkow]

This might help:

Originally Posted by Dinwar
Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here...

Zitat von Dinwar Beitrag anzeigen
Entweder buchen Sie den Betrag der Verunreinigung notwendig sind, um ein Tuch zu lesen 1. Jahrhundert als gedacht, es ist aus dem 14. Jahrhundert, oder wir hier tun ...

Αρχικό μήνυμα από Dinwar Εμφάνιση
Είτε μετά το ποσό της μόλυνσης χρειάζεται να κάνει μια πρώτη πανί αιώνα ως πίστευα ότι είναι από τον 14ο αιώνα, ή να τελειώσει εδώ ...

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Dinwar
تستطيع إما من كمية التلوث اللازمة لجعل قطعة قماش القرن 1 قراءة كما كان يعتقد انها من القرن 14، أو الانتهاء من ذلك نحن هنا ...

Сообщение от Dinwar View
Либо разместить количества загрязнений необходимо, чтобы 1-го века ткань читается как думал, что это 14-го века, и мы сделали здесь ...

โพสต์ Dinwar ดู
ทั้งโพสต์จำนวนเงินจากการปนเปื้อนที่จำเป็นในการทำให้ผ้าศตวรรษที่ 1 อ่านว่าคิดว่ามันมาจากศตวรรษที่ 14 หรือที่เรากำลังทำที่นี่ ...

פורסם במקור על ידי Dinwar
או לפרסם את כמות זיהום צריכה לעשות בד המאה ה -1 לקרוא חשבתי שזה מהמאה ה -14, או שנסיים כאן ...

నిజానికి Dinwar అభిప్రాయాలను పోస్ట్ చేయబడింది #
గానీ అది 14 వ శతాబ్దం నుండి అనిపిస్తుంది ఆలోచన, లేదా మేము ఇక్కడ పూర్తి చేసిన ఒక 1 వ శతాబ్దం వస్త్రం చదవడానికి తయారు చేసేందుకు అవసరమైన కాలుష్యం మొత్తాన్ని పోస్ట్ ...

我Dinwar！
要么张贴的污染量，需要做出一个1世纪的布看，以为是从14世纪，我们在这里做...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.

The Vatican would be biased towards authenticity. What's their stance?

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084).

Yes, you say you've got credible evidence on a subject about which you know nothing. But what little you do know forces you to admit that, for there to be enough contamination for what you say to be true that 3/4ths of the weight of the sampled patch would have to be contaminant and only 1/4 could be the original cloth. And yet you believe that it's credible that not only is this the case, but that nobody has ever noticed that the Shroud is now composed of 3 times as much dirt as it is material.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first

<snip>

What a good idea.

Either post the amount of contamination needed to make a 1st century cloth read as thought it's from the 14th century, or we're done here. NO other argument matters--if you can't produce that, you don't know enough about C14 dating to evaluate it. If there's not that amount of contamination the shroud's a fake, period. Provide that number, or there's nothing else to discuss.

Go!

 

[Akhenaten]

This might help:

 

[tsig]

Dave,

- Sounds like a good idea, and unless you wish me to dig and elaborate on one or more of your previous questions first, I'll now try to dig and elaborate on this one instead. It might take awhile.

- My general response to the above article is that both sides of this world-wide debate are biased -- it isn't just us believers -- and Dr. Schafersman tips off his own bias with many of the words he uses. And, what he calls "pseudo-science" is invoked by both sides.- In his article, Dr. S makes a multitude of claims. If you wish, I can address them one at a time -- but that will greatly postpone my other digging and elaborating...
- Hopefully, your fellows will begin to appreciate the enormity of trying to answer all their raised questions... (Yeah, right...)

- And note that I have tried to answer some of their oft repeated questions. I proposed an initial answer (#1931)to Dinwar's basic question as to what I know about carbon dating -- and, I also pointed out what I consider to be credible evidence that there's a flaw in the carbon dating (#'s 1874 & 2084). But some of your fellows either don't notice my answers, or just ignore them -- whereas, others of your fellows just sweep my answers off the table and under the rug in one fell swoop -- without any specific explanations.
- Others DO provide specific questions or explanations here and there -- and then, I have to decide who and what to try to fit in.

- And now, unless you point me elsewhere -- on to my attempt at "a plausible scenario whereby a patch could be made which has been undetected by anybody that has closely examined the shroud...".


--- Jabba

In context:

In past years, Rogers has published many pro-authenticity papers in various pro-authenticity and pseudoscientific journals, symposia, and websites devoted to the Shroud of Turin, and the public press justifiably took no notice, since private publishing outlets for UFOs, astrology, creationism, and other pseudoscientific topics are numerous (and fill supermarket newsstands and pseudoscience conference book tables)