Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

That's the point. There is no conflicting evidence. There are merely claims of it, all of which have been repeatedly refuted.

I understand your point, and it's not invalid: Jabba's position is this:

1. The C14 evidence has not been refuted.

2. There is other evidence which contradicts the C14 evidence.

3. The other evidence is as compelling as the C14 evidence.

4. Therefore, the accuracy of the C14 evidence is still in doubt even though we can't show the actual error.

The problem, of course, is that #2 and #3 are in error, and therefore #4 does not apply.

Jabba's problem is that he will not admit that #2 and #3 are in error, so he clings to #4.

Precisely.

Thanks. That saved me from wasting yet more time in this thread pointing out the essence of Jabba's mistaken beliefs.




footnote - to put it kindly - a great deal of this comes down to whether or not one understands what real science research is and how the genuine research literature is published. Jabba has no conception of that at all (amongst other possible problems ... such as blinding religious faith)

 

[pakeha]

...
This situation is similar to the position that the archeologist Meacham seems to find himself in except that he had come to believe very strongly in a first century date and the C14 results obviously conflicted significantly with that. Given my propensity for introspection about these things if I had been Meacham one possibility that I would have strongly considered is the possibility of self deception. Still when self deception is deeply established it is very hard to detect it and to reverse it. ...

Ah, poor Meacham.
I daresay he wishes he'd never heard of the TS.
You'll recall the Kouznetsov scam?

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/10/13/dimitri-kouznetsov-repeat-offe/

http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009-02/msg08194.html

 

[Dinwar]

- Over the past 6 months there must have been (in combination) at least 100 “responses” (questions, comments and attacks) (not counting repeats) that I have not "answered" (not responded to)…
- But then, I probably spend about 4 hours a day trying to answer your responses. That’s all the time that I can reasonably spend on this project – and, other than my family, this project is my primary investment these days.

It's taken me less than four hours total to demonstrate that all of your arguments are flawed (well, not counting the education necessary to understand the topics, that is--and if you're not willing to put that time in, why are you bothering to argue about it?).

And if this project is your primary investment, that's rather sad (this is an internet discussion--it's not important), and to my mind proof that you're not honestly investigating this issue. You're lookging for how your pet hypothesis can be right--because reading this thread for four hours would show that your arguments are wrong.

- If you look back over my 491 posts so far, you’ll see that the vast majority (at least) are responding directly to at least one of your responses (looking quickly, I think that ALL of my posts are responding – at least indirectly -- to at least one of them).

Yeah. That's call "having a conversation". Rather an important part of being a member of a DISCUSSION board.

- And then, you fuss at me for what I have left unanswered…
- Which is a problem for me.

You've been playing lawyer, so you've ignored everything about WHY we're complaining about what you've left unanswered. It's not the quantity of what you've left unaddressed, but the quality. You've attempted to address the easy bits (and failed utterly at that), but left unaddressed issues of critical importance to your arguments. You can't, because you're not trying to figure out what's true, you're trying to construct an argument that allows you to think you're right.

- And again, when I try to answer one response, I usually provoke at least a few more. And so, by trying to answer one response, I generally accumulate multiple new ones, and rather than gradually reduce the number of unanswered responses on my table -- by trying to answer them -- I quickly increase them instead...

Yeah--that's the difference between being a lawyer and being a scientist. A lawyer tries to make counter-arguments go away. A scientist tries to address the facts. The reason your "answers" generate more questions is that your answers are mere obfuscations, rather than serious attemtps to address the facts. Of course, if you WERE seriously trying to address the facts your answers would generate more questions as well. Ever wonder why the number of scientific publications have increased nearly exponentially over the past few decades?

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?

I don't disagree with any of the facts. Your INTERPRETATION, however, is about as accurate as a blind archer.

- Do you want me to spend more time on this? Do you want me to do a better job of selecting what to answer next?

- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

I have one: re-examine the data presented thus far in this thread. The data presented here is sufficient to demonstrate to any honest investigator that the shroud is a fraud. If that's not enough (and I can't imagine how, because experts have presented extremely well-documented arguments which you haven't even TRIED to refute), I'd suggest starting with researching basic archaeological techniques. Ignore ALL legal arguments, and ALL research on how to have an argument--these are irrelevant to this conversationo, and you've only ever used these to try to avoid addressing arguments anyway.

If you can't be bothered to learn the basics of the science you're attempting to discuss--in this case, archaeology--you don't care enough about this topic to have a serious conversation. It's really that simple.

Understand, I'm not expecting you to become an expert. I only dabble with it myself, after all--I'm the last person to demand you become an expert. But I AM saying you should know enough to be able to avoid making basic errors, and to understand how to research these issues.

In fairness, the invisible patch (which is neither invisible nor does it use more recent fabric) theory is an attempt to explain away the C14 evidence.

Correct. It's an attempt to explain away the data. This is completely different from ADDRESSING the data. Jabba--and the shroud believers in general--are trying to find any argument they can to discredit the C14 data, including manufacturing doubt. There's NO evidence that there was ever a patch. This is a post-hoc explanation without any justification, support, or proof.

 

[Giordano]

We can have a courtroom debate :

Prosecution "your honor , the 14C testing from the CSI labor shows the cloth is from the 14th century. the prosecution rest its case".
jabba "but I don't like the 14C dating, I object"
Judge "objection rejected , only scientific objection are accepted, no gut feeling".

jabba " the blood..."
prosecution "objection, there is no evidence of blood, even if there was , nothing presence or absence of blood has NO impact on dating of the cloth"
Judge "objection sustained"

jabba "invivisble mending"
prosecution "objection your honor, there is no evidence of such mending existing, and even expert says such mending is visible to expert as they are only "invisible on one side, and even if there was a mending , the fiber is taken from other part of the cloth. In other word it has again no influence on the date"
judge "objection sustained"

Jabba "it is not reproducible by human"
Prosecutor "objection your honor we have expert having a technical reproduction, and even if tehre wasn't it has AGAIN no impact on dating...."
Judge "objection sustained"

jabba "let me see , ah yes, I know a guy which know a guy which say that scientific guy is a poo poo head".
Judge getting impatient "does it has any impact on the dating"
jabba "i want to slowly lead..."
judge getting angry "witness leading is forbidden. Do you have evidence which stand on its own and are accepted by science ?"
jabbba "..... No"
judge "do you have any scientific evidence throwing the 14C dating ? if not I will be doing a summary judgement in favor of prosecution"
Jabba "but but but in TV serie it does no go like that, we can use rethoric to confuse the issue !"
judge "too bad. To all : summary judgement granted, Cloth is from 14th century".

Case closed. Nicely done!

 

[Giordano]

- I’ll try again.

- If you look back over my 491 posts so far, you’ll see that the vast majority (at least) are responding directly to at least one of your responses (looking quickly, I think that ALL of my posts are responding – at least indirectly -- to at least one of them).

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?


---Jabba

When I look back over your 491 posts, I see the vast majority are attempts to avoid responding directly to the original question! Most of your posts are promises to answer the question later, promises to find a reference or evidence that never appears, a little chatty aside about why you can't respond right now, or a repost of an already discredited post that fails to address the major flaws pointed out in the original. Are you really unable to see this yourself?? Or are you playing Perry Mason and doing it knowingly as an attempt to distract from your own lack of evidence?

 

[Giordano]

- I’ll try again.

- But then, I probably spend about 4 hours a day trying to answer your responses. That’s all the time that I can reasonably spend on this project – and, other than my family, this project is my primary investment these days.

- And finally, it seems to me that I have given my answers to as many of your responses as 4 hrs a day will allow...

- Where do you disagree with what I’ve just said?

---Jabba

You are spending 4 hours a day because you are attempting to prove true something that is false. That is your basic problem. You could spend 24 hours a day and it still wouldn't work!

There is only one real question people want you to answer: Is there anything about the 14C dating that you can prove to be scientifically in error? The correct answer, no, would take you a few seconds. The incorrect answer, yes, would take you forever...

 

[pakeha]

Some more on the Kouznetsov scam:
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/Kouznetsov2.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/case_of_the_holy_fraudster/

Here's Meacham's own take on the scam:
http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html

And Ian Wilson's take:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm

Curiously enough, Kouznetsov can still be found as a source in pro-authenticity articles and publications, even long after he was publicly pilloried.

Here's a site which offers an interesting mix of citations and comments about the TS, many I hadn't seen elsewhere.
Strictly for the insatiably curious!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/TSoT/stuc0707.html

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
- If you guys don’t have a sincere solution, I’ll offer mine.

---Jabba

We do. As has been shown the shroud is a medieval fake, a thesis supported by the evidence.

 

[catsmate]

Some more on the Kouznetsov scam:
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/Kouznetsov2.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/case_of_the_holy_fraudster/

Here's Meacham's own take on the scam:
http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html

And Ian Wilson's take:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4405.htm

Curiously enough, Kouznetsov can still be found as a source in pro-authenticity articles and publications, even long after he was publicly pilloried.

Here's a site which offers an interesting mix of citations and comments about the TS, many I hadn't seen elsewhere.
Strictly for the insatiably curious!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/TSoT/stuc0707.html

Ah Kouznetsov. Creationist, wooster, liar, fraudster and criminal. Even the CSF have disassociated themselves from him. And his imaginary journals..........

 

[David Mo]

The sindonology is a nuisance for the sindonists.

The sindonists have a big problem: they get dizzy in a tangle of sophisticated arguments that lead nowhere. Their only argument is: no one knows how it came about the Shroud image. There is not a scientific explanation for it.

The sindonology disturbs the sindonism, if you understand me.

 

[pakeha]

I see your point, at least judging by the recent conference in Valencia.
http://www.shroud-enigma.com/Valencia/image-characteristics- consensus-shroud-of-turin.html

 

[Jabba]

Avoiding the Evidence

- Well anyway, I think that I have a way you can prove that I'm avoiding the evidence -- if I really am.

- Select a "gatekeeper," rather than a spokesperson, to tell me which specific Q, C or A to try to answer next. Everyone can raise whatever questions and objections they wish -- but, instead of me deciding what to try to answer next, the gatekeeper will decide for me.
- I agree that there are numerous Q/C/A's that have been repeated numerous times -- but again, these are, themselves, numerous. Just tell me which of these to address next...
- I claim that if you go ahead and do that, I'll be slow, but you'll see that I do not try to avoid the evidence. That's exactly what I was trying to show with Dave's list re reweaving -- but then, people kept wanting me to move on to other issues. And if you noticed, in addressing Dave's list, I was admitting that my answers weren't that good... I wasn't giving up, as my task is to present the best Shroud authenticity case I can muster -- and, I do still think that the Shroud probably is authentic.

- Perhaps, instead of electing a gatekeeper, you guys could just talk amongst yourselves and decide "in committee" what you would most like me to address next. Maybe, you could develop a private distribution list for anyone who's interested in helping to direct the conversation. Maybe, someone could just offer him or her self to designate what I should answer next. Maybe, you could take turns in alphabetical order...

- I will still want equal time to direct the conversation myself.

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, you are.

- Well anyway, I think that I have a way you can prove that I'm avoiding the evidence -- if I really am.

Not necessary. We have a whole thread full of evidence of you doing it that we can refer to.

- Select a "gatekeeper," rather than a spokesperson, to tell me which specific Q, C or A to try to answer next. Everyone can raise whatever questions and objections they wish -- but, instead of me deciding what to try to answer next, the gatekeeper will decide for me.

No.

For the twentieth time.

- I agree that there are numerous Q/C/A's that have been repeated numerous times -- but again, these are, themselves, numerous. Just tell me which of these to address next...

Could you address the issue of your insistence on using non-standard formatting and abbreviations?

- I claim that if you go ahead and do that, I'll be slow, but you'll see that I do not try to avoid the evidence. That's exactly what I was trying to show with Dave's list re reweaving -- but then, people kept wanting me to move on to other issues.

Poor you. The truth is, however, that the continual darting about from one irrelevant issue to another is all your own doing, and it's quite obviously a ploy to keep from addressing the only issue that really matters.

And if you noticed, in addressing Dave's list, I was admitting that my answers weren't that good... I wasn't giving up, as my task is to present the best Shroud authenticity case I can muster -- and, I do still think that the Shroud probably is authentic.

It doesn't matter how good a case you make, you're trying to sell a lie to people who know the truth.

And your still thinking that the shroud is probably authentic simply means you're lying to yourself as well.

- Perhaps, instead of electing a gatekeeper, you guys could just talk amongst yourselves and decide "in committee" what you would most like me to address next. Maybe, you could develop a private distribution list for anyone who's interested in helping to direct the conversation. Maybe, someone could just offer him or her self to designate what I should answer next. Maybe, you could take turns in alphabetical order...

Maybe you could stop trying to herd cats.

- I will still want equal time to direct the conversation myself.

What you want is, not to put too fine a point on it, completely irrelevant.

 

[carlitos]

The truth is, however, that the continual darting about from one irrelevant issue to another is all your own doing, and it's quite obviously a ploy to keep from addressing the only issue that really matters.

From JayUtah in another thread. Seems apt here:

Conspiracists and under-bridge performance artists generally try to push the debate to things that can be haggled ad nauseam, such as appropriate standards of proof, matters of interpretation or opinion, inconsequential details that remain ambiguous, conflicting eyewitnesses. Attempting to resolve the question in a more straightforward, factual fashion generally means the conspiracist very quickly has to admit ignorance of, and error in, appropriate facts and sciences that refute his claim, and the debate is over too quickly. Perpetuating the debate is what most conspiracists want; they want to remain relevant for as long as possible -- especially when there are book deals and TV appearances at stake.

 

[Akhenaten]

From JayUtah in another thread. Seems apt here:

I hope someone nominates that. It deserves to be seen by a wider readership than just the lucky folks in the (I'm guessing) CT sub-forum.

And yes, it's definitely apt here.

 

[pakeha]

Oh, my.

- I agree that there are numerous Q/C/A's that have been repeated numerous times -- but again, these are, themselves, numerous. Just tell me which of these to address next...

Really numerous, Jabba?
Isn't it clear the main subject is the C14 dating?

 

[abaddon]

- Well anyway, I think that I have a way you can prove that I'm avoiding the evidence -- if I really am.

- Select a "gatekeeper," rather than a spokesperson, to tell me which specific Q, C or A to try to answer next. Everyone can raise whatever questions and objections they wish -- but, instead of me deciding what to try to answer next, the gatekeeper will decide for me.
- I agree that there are numerous Q/C/A's that have been repeated numerous times -- but again, these are, themselves, numerous. Just tell me which of these to address next...
- I claim that if you go ahead and do that, I'll be slow, but you'll see that I do not try to avoid the evidence. That's exactly what I was trying to show with Dave's list re reweaving -- but then, people kept wanting me to move on to other issues. And if you noticed, in addressing Dave's list, I was admitting that my answers weren't that good... I wasn't giving up, as my task is to present the best Shroud authenticity case I can muster -- and, I do still think that the Shroud probably is authentic.

- Perhaps, instead of electing a gatekeeper, you guys could just talk amongst yourselves and decide "in committee" what you would most like me to address next. Maybe, you could develop a private distribution list for anyone who's interested in helping to direct the conversation. Maybe, someone could just offer him or her self to designate what I should answer next. Maybe, you could take turns in alphabetical order...

- I will still want equal time to direct the conversation myself.

--- Jabba

Don't address anything "next".

Address C14 FIRST. You are still avoiding it.

 

[Patchwork Moth]

I've not been here long but I have only seen one question asked of you.

Have you any proof/evidence that the C14 dating is wrong?

 

[abaddon]

I've not been here long but I have only seen one question asked of you.

Have you any proof/evidence that the C14 dating is wrong?

Welcome PM. Your answer is no. Nothing but evasion.

 

[Garrette]

I see your point, at least judging by the recent conference in Valencia.
http://www.shroud-enigma.com/Valencia/image-characteristics- consensus-shroud-of-turin.html

Reading the challenge to skeptics to replicate the image and the challenge's list of requirements reminds me of a long-ago discussion here about a psychic who allegedly found the body of a missing child. At the pro-psychic's request I produced examples of non-psychics performing similar feats under analogous circumstances. I predicted objections by anticipating he would complain that the psychic wore a blue shirt instead of the green one worn by the non-psychic in my example and the replication was therefore not a replication after all. Lo and behold, my opponent did almost precisely that, though instead clothing he talked about (iirc) the weather not being the same.

If someone were to produce an image indistinguishable from the SoT, believers would discount it because they can't find an invisible patch on the duplicate.