Jabba said:
- Unfortunately, I still have doubts about the overall study.
But you've both admitted and proven that you don't UNDERSTAND the study--not even the absolutely most basic aspects of the system in question, such as the fact that radiometric decay is a geometric not a linear progression. How can you have doubts about something you don't even understand? How can you pretend that your doubts are valid when you don't know anything about the thing you doubt?!
- I have numerous reasons for believing that the dating results are incorrect -- relative to the larger cloth (at least). So far, I believe that the sample was simply NOT representative of the larger cloth, and my best guess as to why it wasn’t is that it was largely composed of an essentially invisible patch, and that the results obtained by the three labs were essentially correct for their samples...
Right, right--I got that. I want you to now prove that there WAS an invisible patch.
Remember, I've actually posted research on how "invisible patches" are put on. There are a few methods, all of which are known to NOT, in fact, be invisible. You need to come up with a new method (not an idea for one, but an actual proven method), and then prove that that method was used.
- Keep in mind that 1) my “faith” is, indeed, small – that’s why I really WANT the Shroud to be authentic, and 2) my main RATIONAL reason for believing that the dating results are incorrect is that I perceive there to be overwhelming evidence otherwise that the Shroud is much older than 700 years.
Completely irrelevant. We're talking a particular line of reasoning right now--I'm asking you to prove specific predictions made by your hypotheses.
1) Fleury said it didn’t matter where they cut – it was all the same. This was obviously an overstatement, considering that some repairs had already been acknowledged. Maybe, she just assumed that they would never use that obviously problematic corner for the sample
Repairs had been done, yes. However, Every known historic repair was so bleedingly obvious that they were able to remove those repairs when they transfered the shroud to a new backing. All of this was proven in this thread. The existence of some repairs in no way implies that repairs still existed once they were removed.
2) Seems like the adjoining Raes sample was an obvious repair.
Even if this is true (and I'm by no means accepting your word on this), this doesn't matter. My cubicle is next to a woman's at work. Does that make me a woman? I'm sitting next to a desk--does that make ME a desk?
3) Fleury was not present at the sample selection.
Completely irrelevant. I've DONE sampling, Jabba. All the expert needs to do is tell the person where to sample and how to do it. If the expert says "It doesn't matter", guess what? It doesn't matter. A trained monkey can do even the most complex sample protocol; as long as a competant person establishes the protocol it's fine.
4) The two in charge of the cutting process took an hour -- during the process -- to decide where to cut…
I've taken DAYS to decide where to take a sample. The textile expert said that from her perspective it doesn't matter. Doesn't mean that no other perspective exists. No matter what age it is, this is still a priceless historical artifact--the fact that they were willing to cut it at all is impressive.
5) And, experts do claim that re-weaving can be done well enough so as to not be visible to the naked eye.
No. This is a lie. There are two methods: French reweaving and patch reweaving. Patch re-weaving, which is what you're talking about, leaves a known pattern in the cloth. Both can be detected--they're only "invisible" in that they're not obvious during the course of daily activities. When experts examine a cloth--say, to remove known patches--the re-weaving will be obvious.
None of this makes the cloth old, by the way. All of this could be true--every single point--and the shroud could still be from the 14th century.
- In my next post, I’ll try to take up where I left off.
Don't bother. Explain the new method of reweaving that you're proposing, and prove that it was used. Since you're proposing a patch, that's the only thing that matters at this point.
pgwenthold said:
I would also add that the presence of an "invisible patch" really begs the question of why?
The shroud WAS patched in the past. Those patches were obvious, and were easily identified and removed when the shroud was transfered to a new backing. Those patches were in parts of the image, and yet were clear as day. It's completely irrational to assume that someone would develop a completely new technique for repairing cloth and use it on an unimportant courner far from the image itself. It's like a doctor being more worried about your stubbed toe then the bullet wound in your heart.
.
