Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Evidence Against Catbon Dating

Pakeha,

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating. I’ll have to put off the legalese issue for now.


Everyone,

- First, I need to regroup. This page will be like a preface, or introduction

- Note that my first post on this thread was post #17 and occurred on March 6. Note that my first post re the carbon dating was #65, which occurred on March 10. Of my 498 posts, at least 125 (by my count) have addressed the issue of carbon dating – it isn’t like I’ve ignored the issue, or that I haven’t presented what I consider to be evidence against the dating. You guys just disagree with me about what constitutes meaningful evidence…
- I didn’t know how to effectively indicate the selection guidance for which I was asking, but see now that I should have said something about level of “specificity.” You guys don’t think much of my allusion to sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc, but somehow I needed to ask for a particular level of specificity regarding the carbon dating sub-issue. I should have enumerated the various branches re the C14 that we had been tracking and ask which one you would like me to extend – say CD/re-weave/geting past the experts/Flury-Lemberg’s claims…

-Another problem is that I wish to stick with concepts taken from U.S. civil courtroom procedures. I still don’t see any problem using such concepts, and think instead that they are quite useful for advancing public understanding of disagreements between experts in whatever field – be it legal, philosophical, political, scientific or whatever.

- I still claim to have two categories of evidence against the carbon dating – “direct”: evidence that addresses the process, and “indirect”: evidence that addresses the results. I also claim that it is useful to thusly stipulate this distinction.
- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process. Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)
- Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at? Those on my side think there is plenty. Those on the other side think that there is little to none.

- I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

 

[wollery]

...snip...

- I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

To waffle on some more about what you're going to do.

Seriously, you've been counting how many of your posts address the C14 dating?

It's no wonder you spend 4 hours a day here without actually getting anywhere.

 

[Aepervius]

it isn’t like I’ve ignored the issue, or that I haven’t presented what I consider to be evidence against the dating. You guys just disagree with me about what constitutes meaningful evidence…

That's because to refute a meaningful scientific evidence you need another scientific meaningful evidence , and you provided NONE.

You don't refute the theory of gravity (or evolution) by saying "I don't like it". You falsify it by providing a solid scientific piece of evidence contrary to the aforementioned theory.

Again you have NONE of that, and that is why your "gut feeling against 14C" Is rejected unanimously.

Mrc_hans got it right, you are just pedaling backward quicker and quicker.

 

[Dinwar]

at least 125 (by my count) have addressed the issue of carbon dating

Simply mentioning carbon dating is not, in science, sufficient to say that you've addressed carbon dating. To address an issue in science you must actually provide an informed discussion of that issue--something you have thus far failed to do.

Also, anything you said before you learned that radiometric decay was geometric and not linear can be ignored.

You guys just disagree with me about what constitutes meaningful evidence…

True. That's because you're trying to cram a legal definition of the term down our gullets in a scientific discussion. You are using an incorrect definition. We disagree with you because you are wrong.

- I didn’t know how to effectively indicate the selection guidance for which I was asking, but see now that I should have said something about level of “specificity.” You guys don’t think much of my allusion to sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc, but somehow I needed to ask for a particular level of specificity regarding the carbon dating sub-issue. I should have enumerated the various branches re the C14 that we had been tracking and ask which one you would like me to extend – say CD/re-weave/geting past the experts/Flury-Lemberg’s claims…

This is nothing more than you telling us how to discuss this with you, in an attempt to avoid any actual, meaningful discussion.

Another problem is that I wish to stick with concepts taken from U.S. civil courtroom procedures.

Yes, that IS a problem. It's akin to demanding we play chess by the rules of poker. IT IS WRONG. The sooner you accept that this is a SCIENTIFIC issue, and not a LEGAL issue, the sooner you may actually make some headway in this conversation.

I still don’t see any problem using such concepts, and think instead that they are quite useful for advancing public understanding of disagreements between experts in whatever field

When you present an expert that can't be ripped to shreds without effort, this may be an interesting concept to discuss. Thus far, you haven't, so it's not.

- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process.

Well, see, there's this little tiny detail that's gumming up the works for you: YOU DO NOT KNOW THE PROCESS. You demonstrably know nothing about radiometric dating, and therefore are incapable of evaluating the process (in order to evaluate it you have to understand what's going on). So your criticisms are not valid.

Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)

This is disengenuous to the point of fraudulance. it's not that we "believe" anything. Every single "weakness" you've presented has been shown to be either completely misunderstood by you (like the invisible patch that's not invisible and uses fibers from the cloth itself) or to have no significant impact on the dating (for example, the film that was cleaned off in different ways in different labs). This isn't a mere belief on our part--we've actually provided proof that your objections are wrong.

Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at? Those on my side think there is plenty.

Thus far you've failed utterly to present any. Given your gross incompetence in relevant fields (you demonstrably don't understand the basics of carbon dating, scientific analysis in general, reweaving, etc.--and that's not getting into the numerous bits of data you've been flat-out ignoring, this is just the things you've addressed in a manner that shows you have no clue what you're talking about) there's no reason for anyone to believe you.

It's simple, Jabba: if you make errors about the most basic concepts in a topic it's almost certain that you will make errors in the more complex concepts (you might be right by chance, but you'll never know). You've made numerous errors about the most basic concepts in all of the topics addressed--yet you expect us to take you seriously when you discuss far more complex concepts. We CAN'T.

I’ll be back.

I don't doubt it. My question is, will you say anything that's not telling us how to argue, and misrepresenting our arguments? Thus far, you've failed to do so since you got back.

 

[Akhenaten]

Pakeha,

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating. I’ll have to put off the legalese issue for now.

Of course you will. It's what you do every Tuesday.

Everyone,

- First, I need to regroup.

Of course you do. It's what you do every third or fourth post.

This page will be like a preface, or introduction

Because we might have missed the first two hundred of them?

- Note that my first post on this thread was post #17 and occurred on March 6. Note that my first post re the carbon dating was #65, which occurred on March 10. Of my 498 posts, at least 125 (by my count) have addressed the issue of carbon dating – it isn’t like I’ve ignored the issue, or that I haven’t presented what I consider to be evidence against the dating. You guys just disagree with me about what constitutes meaningful evidence…

You know who else likes to count his own posts and tell us that we've got the concept of evidence all wrong?

- I didn’t know how to effectively indicate the selection guidance for which I was asking, but see now that I should have said something about level of “specificity.” You guys don’t think much of my allusion to sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc, but somehow I needed to ask for a particular level of specificity regarding the carbon dating sub-issue. I should have enumerated the various branches re the C14 that we had been tracking and ask which one you would like me to extend – say CD/re-weave/geting past the experts/Flury-Lemberg’s claims…

So many words. so little meaning.

-Another problem is that I wish to stick with concepts taken from U.S. civil courtroom procedures. I still don’t see any problem using such concepts, and think instead that they are quite useful for advancing public understanding of disagreements between experts in whatever field – be it legal, philosophical, political, scientific or whatever.

Yes, it's a problem alright, but only for you. That you don't understand this after having had it explained to you so many times seems to be a bigger problem though.

- I still claim to have two categories of evidence against the carbon dating – “direct”: evidence that addresses the process, and “indirect”: evidence that addresses the results. I also claim that it is useful to thusly stipulate this distinction.

You claim lots of things, ranging from irrelevant to flat-out wrong.

- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process. Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)

Your beliefs and perceptions are irrelevant. The evidence trumps both of them.

- Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at?

Apparently not, given that despite your (and others) desperation you've been completely unable to produce any.

Those on my side think there is plenty. Those on the other side think that there is little to none.

Hmm. Wishful thinking, fanciful theories, self-delusion and bald-faced lying versus the scientific and historical evidence.

Tough choice.

- I’ll be back.

Of course you will. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Kind of tragic, really.

 

[pakeha]

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating. I’ll have to put off the legalese issue for now.

No worries, Jabba!

- I still claim to have two categories of evidence against the carbon dating – “direct”: evidence that addresses the process, and “indirect”: evidence that addresses the results. I also claim that it is useful to thusly stipulate this distinction.
- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process. Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)

Great. Why not get started and post up the claims and their sources?

- Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at? Those on my side think there is plenty.

Great. Why not get started and post up the claims and their sources?

Please keep in mind that by sources I mean the original papers, not links to a blog or website that mentions them.

 

[Aepervius]

Also, anything you said before you learned that radiometric decay was geometric and not linear can be ignored.

Good grief , I may have missed that.

It is trully staggering and baffling that this alone did not make jabba "rethink" his position while he is still lambasting us for minor irrelevant detail.

 

[tsig]

Pakeha,

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating. I’ll have to put off the legalese issue for now.


Everyone,

- First, I need to regroup. This page will be like a preface, or introduction

- Note that my first post on this thread was post #17 and occurred on March 6. Note that my first post re the carbon dating was #65, which occurred on March 10. Of my 498 posts, at least 125 (by my count) have addressed the issue of carbon dating – it isn’t like I’ve ignored the issue, or that I haven’t presented what I consider to be evidence against the dating. You guys just disagree with me about what constitutes meaningful evidence…
- I didn’t know how to effectively indicate the selection guidance for which I was asking, but see now that I should have said something about level of “specificity.” You guys don’t think much of my allusion to sub-issues, sub-sub-issues, etc, but somehow I needed to ask for a particular level of specificity regarding the carbon dating sub-issue. I should have enumerated the various branches re the C14 that we had been tracking and ask which one you would like me to extend – say CD/re-weave/geting past the experts/Flury-Lemberg’s claims…

-Another problem is that I wish to stick with concepts taken from U.S. civil courtroom procedures. I still don’t see any problem using such concepts, and think instead that they are quite useful for advancing public understanding of disagreements between experts in whatever field – be it legal, philosophical, political, scientific or whatever.

- I still claim to have two categories of evidence against the carbon dating – “direct”: evidence that addresses the process, and “indirect”: evidence that addresses the results. I also claim that it is useful to thusly stipulate this distinction.
- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process. Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)
- Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at? Those on my side think there is plenty. Those on the other side think that there is little to none.

- I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

If this was a legal case the prosecutor would bring in the DNA(C¹⁴ data to prove the suspect was at the scene while all you would have are vague rumors that the suspect could have been seen somewhere else by unnamed witnesses or that the crime couldn't have been commited at all.

 

[Monza]

So let me get this straight. On 31 August, Jabba stated he would directly address one topic to avoid all the confusion of multiple topics. On the same day, several people requested that the C14 dating be addressed. In fact, no other topic has been proposed. In the ensuing four days, Jabba has posted another six times to ask what we thought of his proposal, how he'd like to address it, that he'll be back soon to address it, and how he feels about his evidence.

How about just posting the evidence already?! Stop talking about how, why, and when you'll post your evidence. Just post it and let's go from there. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a delaying tactic to avoid a discussion of the evidence. Note that a response to this post would be nothing more than another delaying tactic. No one wants a discussion about the discussion of what your evidence may be.

Just post your evidence of why the C14 dating is invalid.

 

[IanS]

Pakeha,

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating.

.
.
.

- So … were there weaknesses in the PROCESS itself? Those on my side of the aisle think that there were numerous weaknesses in the process. Those on the other side believe that any weaknesses in the process have little or no consequences. (Or at least, that’s my perception of the other side’s belief regarding process weakness.)

- Is there “outside” evidence against the date arrived at? Those on my side think there is plenty. Those on the other side think that there is little to none.

- I’ll be back.

--- Jabba

It's been explained to you at least 50 times before why none your sources are in fact offering any genuine evidence.

I'll explain it again -

- the C14 results are represented by a properly published genuine research paper.

- if you or anyone, wants to dispute those published results, then you can only do that in a comparable scientifically valid research publication. That is - you MUST produce any such claimed evidence in a real research journal ... not in any other amateur publishing arena.

But you were already forced to admit (though it took 65 pages for you to admit it!) that in fact you do not have even one such genuine research paper where any genuine independent research scientist has ever disputed or criticised that C14 publication. Not even One!

That is the definition of genuine "evidence" here. And you do not have any such "genuine evidence". You have absolutely no such evidence against the C14 at all .... zero, none!

What you do have, and what you want to call "evidence" is the amateur self published claims of internet shroud believers. But that is emphatically 100% NOT genuine scientific research evidence of the kind published from the C14 labs.....

.... REPEAT .... to qualify as evidence, you must show something genuinely published in a real science journal, from independent scientists using a valid modern relevant technique.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This reminds me of ... do you know these people? - Incompetent drivers trying to pull into a parking space. So they find that the car is placed all skewed. So they put it into reverse, and back out. Only, they don't turn the steering wheel, so when they go back in, they find themselves in the same position. So they back out, and ... etc.

At least, Jabba, do as some of them do: Leave the car askew and get on with your life. You neither have the skills nor the opportunity to do a scientific re-examination of the SoT, and you neither have the skills nor the evidence to meaningfully discuss it. - Well, it isn't important. Leave it.

Hans

 

[Multivac]

Pakeha,

- Guess I’ll go back to my claim that the evidence AGAINST the carbon dating outweighs the evidence FOR the carbon dating. I’ll have to put off the legalese issue for now.

I'm sorry but this simply is not true. There is no evidence proving that the carbon dating methodology, or the date produced, was wrong. If you believe that you have provided this evidence already, could you please repost it as I must have missed it.

Thanks

 

[Jabba]

Evidence Against Catbon Dating

Multivac,
- I didn't mean to imply that I was simply simply "sticking to my story," or that I expected to "prove" anything. My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.
- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question.
--- Jabba

 

[MRC_Hans]

My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity

And even that evidence has been shot to pieces.

Hans

 

[Akhenaten]

My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.

This is about like saying that while the salvaged items, film and photographic evidence are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports an unsinkable RMS Titanic.

- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question.

I'm willing to bet you're not doing anything of the sort and that what you're really doing is trying to figure out a way to re-present the nonsense that's already been debunked.

 

[Pixel42]

My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.

Any amount of scientifically rigorous evidence, no matter how small, will always outweigh any amount of anecdotal evidence, no matter how large. Especially when every single piece of that anecdotal evidence has been shot to pieces.

 

[Garrette]

Multivac,
- I didn't mean to imply that I was simply simply "sticking to my story," or that I expected to "prove" anything. My claim is that the great preponderance of evidence favors Shroud authenticity, and that while the C14 results are impressive, they don't outweigh the evidence that supports a much older cloth.
- I'm currently trying to gather up the evidence that calls the C14 results into serious question.
--- Jabba

Fraud Evidence:

C14 tests. Independent labs. Reputable scientists. Peer reviewed results. Replicated (3 labs). Relevant experts involved in sample selection. Results accepted by the Vatican.

McCrone's findings. Evidence of paint. Frequently attacked but not refuted.

Inconsistency of burial procedure allowing blood transfer with actual ritual burial custom.

Style matches artistic style of fraud era.

Image does not correlate with transfer of 3D object transferred to 2D surface.

Arm proportions are off.

"Flagellation" marks extend beyond body image edges.

Letter from relevant time period describing it as fraud.


Duplication.



Authenticity Evidence

Unpublished, unpeer-reviewed speculation that stuff that might be components of blood might explain McCrone's findings.

Rogers did a test in his kitchen with unprovenanced threads.

Unpublished, unpeer-reviewed speculation that the unproven blood has qualities present
only when the bleeder had suffered flagellation.

No exact duplication of the shroud even though no one knows what it looked like when created.


I will agree that one side dies have the preponderance of evidence.

 

[Jabba]

Evidence Against Catbon Dating

- I’ve provided a LOT of ALLEGED evidence against the carbon dating.

- You guys say, “That’s not evidence; THIS is evidence!” (Your evidence being, essentially, the Nature article.)
- You guys claim that the researchers, and authors otherwise, that I reference regarding the carbon dating are largely unqualified and biased; and, that my alleged “evidence” is essentially neither peer reviewed nor first hand, and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans -- let alone reasonable doubt.

- I am currently trying to gather up links and arguments to refute your claims and further make my case…
- We'll see...
- But, I will be back.

--- Jabba

 

[carlitos]

We shall wait and see.

 

[Akhenaten]

I am currently trying to gather up links and arguments to refute your claims and further make my case…
- We'll see...
- But, I will be back.