pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Oh, Jabba.
Is that really all you could come up with?
A FAQ excerpt?
As for what you call a 'claim'- as the Pharaoh wrote, why not look at the shroud to see for yourself?
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Oh, Jabba.
Is that really all you could come up with?
A FAQ excerpt?
As for what you call a 'claim'- as the Pharaoh wrote, why not look at the shroud to see for yourself?
No, this INDICATES that it's different. Chemical analysis is discussed up-thread.
Also, if Rogers is saying that a color photograph is fluorescence he's shown himself to be too ignorant to waste time on. A REAL fluoresence experiment may be of some value (never played with fluoresence with organic stuff--it was always thin-sections, looking fro growth patterns in the crystals), but to call a color photograph fluoresences is as honest as calling it the Electric Slide.
None of this has to do with C14 dating. The ptches are quite clearly visible in the photographs, indicating that whoever patched the thing obviously did so via standard means (which makes sense, anything else would be fraud). In order for this nonsense to be worth the spit it takes to say it you'd have to prove--not suggest, but PROVE--that some unique, never-before-seen technique never used since it was used on the shroud was used in this specific area.
You get back to us once you've done that.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
OK Now i am laughing to tears and my colleague are asking what's up with me.
After being asked for the umpteenth time for argument against 14C published results , we are served a PDF FAQ from roger with dubious DNA claim in it, and "darknening" non peer reviewed claim out of the blue.
Thanks jabba, you made my day.
After being asked for the umpteenth time for argument against 14C published results , we are served a PDF FAQ from roger with dubious DNA claim in it, and "darknening" non peer reviewed claim out of the blue.
Thanks jabba, you made my day.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Evidence Against Carbon Dating
- I don't understand all this fussing.
- Clearly, if it is true that there are numerous other places on the Shroud that show the same darkening, Rogers has a serious problem with his claims -- and the dating is further supported.
- Wanting to believe Rogers, and tending to believe him, I have figured that while superficially there does appear to be numerous areas with the same darkening, there must be some difference that doesn't show up till we get a closer peek at these other areas. I was hoping to find some close ups of these other areas.
- If you notice, unlike the normal lawyer, I'm asking questions for which I don't know the answers. Could be that I'm going to get an answer that does shoot down this claim by Rogers -- and, that would be a serious setback for my side.
- Also, this was just something that occurred to me as I've been trying to track down all the peer-reviewed papers re the carbon dating. I posted it this morning because it was a question that could be important, and was easy to ask. I should have known, but didn't, that it wouldn't be easy to answer.
- Looking at the "big picture" (the whole cloth), most of the darkened areas are on the image -- which Rogers explains. I was hoping to find a close up or two of some of the other darkened areas, and proceed (somewhere) from there.
- Also, I didn't realize (or think about) the possibility of pasting that picture of the sample area to my posting...
--- Jabba
- I don't understand all this fussing.
- Clearly, if it is true that there are numerous other places on the Shroud that show the same darkening, Rogers has a serious problem with his claims -- and the dating is further supported.
- Wanting to believe Rogers, and tending to believe him, I have figured that while superficially there does appear to be numerous areas with the same darkening, there must be some difference that doesn't show up till we get a closer peek at these other areas. I was hoping to find some close ups of these other areas.
- If you notice, unlike the normal lawyer, I'm asking questions for which I don't know the answers. Could be that I'm going to get an answer that does shoot down this claim by Rogers -- and, that would be a serious setback for my side.
- Also, this was just something that occurred to me as I've been trying to track down all the peer-reviewed papers re the carbon dating. I posted it this morning because it was a question that could be important, and was easy to ask. I should have known, but didn't, that it wouldn't be easy to answer.
- Looking at the "big picture" (the whole cloth), most of the darkened areas are on the image -- which Rogers explains. I was hoping to find a close up or two of some of the other darkened areas, and proceed (somewhere) from there.
- Also, I didn't realize (or think about) the possibility of pasting that picture of the sample area to my posting...
--- Jabba
The above is, yet again, 100% pure irrelevant waffle.
You were asked which science journal is your Rogers article is from?
Well? ... Which journal was it?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
The shroudy position boils down to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
It even sounds right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
It even sounds right.
davefoc
Philosopher
This is a link to a site that allows one to zoom in on any area of various detailed shroud images:
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml
One use for the tool, suggested previously in this thread was to look for the banding that John P. Jackson and others claim is a basis for discounting the medieval "reweave" hypothesis.
source: http://shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml
One use for the tool, suggested previously in this thread was to look for the banding that John P. Jackson and others claim is a basis for discounting the medieval "reweave" hypothesis.
source: http://shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf
"All this fussing"? We're not infants squalling for our blankies--we're raising serious concerns about your arguments. You cannot simply dismiss them by calling them "fussing".Jabba said:
Stop. Stop right there. You need to ask yourself some serious questions about why you're drawing the conclusions you are. Because this is just shy of admitting that you believe this because you want to, not because the facts support it. You need to figure out just how deep this bias goes, and just how many errors you have made because of it.
In other words, you made an assumption. It's wrong.
There's no justification for pretending to be any lawyer of any type. I have told you, over and over and over, that this is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a legal one. You will NEVER find the true answers until you abandon the pretense that the legal system is a valid way to handle scientific debate. It's not, and your inability to see that is holding you back.
I gave you two in my last post. Others have given you more.
It was extremely easy to answer. A cursory glance at the shroud shows that numerous areas are discolored, and a basic understanding of the terms demonstrates that what Rogers did isnt' fluoresence. He LIED. It really is as simple as that.
I'd love to see your statistical analysis of this. Furthermore, many (I'd say most from a qualitative analysis) of the discolored areas are along the burn marks and the edges--areas we'd expect to be discolored. Finally, even if the discoloration is due to altered chemistry you need to prove that it changed the ratio of C14 to C12/C13. Merely switching up the chemical bonds won't do that.
You're admitting to dishonesty, on two counts, and are trying to play the victim. It won't work. Science requires evidence, which you've utterly failed to produce.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Jabba, do you know how the picture in Roger's FAQ was taken? Was it back lit or front lit? is it a blown up section of a larger image or a close up of that specific area? What film and processing techniques were used? has that particular image been altered in any way? Is it a true colour image or a false colour image?
If you don't have the answers to these questions then the picture (and Roger's assertions) are worthless.
Let's take this image from a bit later in the pdf as an example of Roger's standard of evidence;
He claims that it shows a UV image of the hands and "bands of color and their effect on image color density". Well that's a crock. The image is so pixellated that there's no way to get reliable colour information from it, the banding could just as easily be an artefact of image processing as anything real.
We only have Roger's word that these are UV fluorescence images in the first place.
If you don't have the answers to these questions then the picture (and Roger's assertions) are worthless.
Let's take this image from a bit later in the pdf as an example of Roger's standard of evidence;
He claims that it shows a UV image of the hands and "bands of color and their effect on image color density". Well that's a crock. The image is so pixellated that there's no way to get reliable colour information from it, the banding could just as easily be an artefact of image processing as anything real.
We only have Roger's word that these are UV fluorescence images in the first place.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It seems that your need to believe is so strong that it means you can look at the same picture as everyone else and see something completely different.
Your observation that most of the darkened areas are on the image is clearly, demonstrably, unequivocally flat-out wrong.
For values of 'explains' that include 'makes stuff up holus-bolus'.
Yeah, that sounds totally scientific.
Isis wept, Jabba. I've been studying the shroud for about ten minutes total and I could present your case better than you have.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I noticed exactly the same things when I was preparing the picture I posted of the sample area.
The images in that PDF are absolutely horrid and there are almost as many jpeg artefacts in them as there are original pixels.
Further, as you allude, it seems to me that the pictures are normal white light photographs. They certainly look nothing like any other UV pictures I've ever seen.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Is it possible you haven't ever used this invaluable link dave posted up?
It's been around for a number of years now.
You can do all the peeking you want at that site- it really is quite good!
Jabba, haven't you noticed that it's not about sides here?
David Mo
Philosopher
Kouznetsov reborns!
Great news!?
A university professor has revived the old Kouznetsov theories with some interesting variants. Yes, Kouznetsov was debunked. Sindonists as William Meacham accept this. And the Tucson laboratory made an empirical refutation of the theory about contamination by fire. (A. J. T. Jull, D. J. Donahue and P. E. Damon: “Factors Affecting the Apparent Radiocarbon Age of Textiles…”, Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 157–160). But now, Francisco Alconchel-Pecino (Department of Applied Physics, Superior Technical School of Industrial Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid), in “A possible hypothesis for correcting the radiocarbon age of the Shroud of Turin”, (Sorry. I can link because the stupid Randi Forum Rules. You can see it here: Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 7(29), pp. 2624-2640, 30 July, 2012, Academicjournals. org ) claims this refutation is not valid because Jull et allia didn’t consider the big catalytic effect of the silver. He presents new mathematical calculi supporting the invalidation of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud.
I think this is pleasant sounding, but my mathematics is worse than my English.
What do you think?
Great news!?
A university professor has revived the old Kouznetsov theories with some interesting variants. Yes, Kouznetsov was debunked. Sindonists as William Meacham accept this. And the Tucson laboratory made an empirical refutation of the theory about contamination by fire. (A. J. T. Jull, D. J. Donahue and P. E. Damon: “Factors Affecting the Apparent Radiocarbon Age of Textiles…”, Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 157–160). But now, Francisco Alconchel-Pecino (Department of Applied Physics, Superior Technical School of Industrial Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid), in “A possible hypothesis for correcting the radiocarbon age of the Shroud of Turin”, (Sorry. I can link because the stupid Randi Forum Rules. You can see it here: Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 7(29), pp. 2624-2640, 30 July, 2012, Academicjournals. org ) claims this refutation is not valid because Jull et allia didn’t consider the big catalytic effect of the silver. He presents new mathematical calculi supporting the invalidation of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud.
I think this is pleasant sounding, but my mathematics is worse than my English.
What do you think?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Somehow I can only read that as Francisco Alcohol-Pecino. Another round of Dom, perhaps?
Chuck random spaces in the text for the link and one of us will correct it.
ETA: Like "w w w. Whatever.org"
Last edited:
Hubert Cumberdale
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
Silver acts as a catalyst for radioactive decay?
Quick! Someone get some new laws of physics! The old ones are broke!
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I'll second that notion.
David Mo
Philosopher
Some problem with your glasses, perhaps?
Thank you.
w w w.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Alconchel-Pecino.pdf
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Never heard of scientifc research and essay before, started in 2008 apparentely they have a low impact factor is not cited often and has a very low international collaboration. it could be because it is a new journal though.
It is a theoretical article. My experience with theory is that by slightly changing hypotheses and assumption you can get wildly different results, the trick is to hide the assumption and lead to the result you want. There is a tons of equation and those assumption are not put very clearly. And there is no experimental verification.
Also looking at their conclusion they say the "however the experts give solid reason to think the shroud is from 1st century AD". I am sorry ? Which experts ??
I'll leave for work , but another consideration is that for such a SEMINAL work showing that 14C can replace in bulk in linen and break the dating by so much , why not in a very high impact factor journal, an established one on radiocarbon dating, archeology or even physic ? I mean this can change the dating of many stuff in archeology when there was a fire , that would be pretty much damn important.
It is a theoretical article. My experience with theory is that by slightly changing hypotheses and assumption you can get wildly different results, the trick is to hide the assumption and lead to the result you want. There is a tons of equation and those assumption are not put very clearly. And there is no experimental verification.
Also looking at their conclusion they say the "however the experts give solid reason to think the shroud is from 1st century AD". I am sorry ? Which experts ??
I'll leave for work , but another consideration is that for such a SEMINAL work showing that 14C can replace in bulk in linen and break the dating by so much , why not in a very high impact factor journal, an established one on radiocarbon dating, archeology or even physic ? I mean this can change the dating of many stuff in archeology when there was a fire , that would be pretty much damn important.
Last edited:
- Status