Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Akhenaten]

Pakeha,
- OK. If I want to quote somebody, but can't get permission, I'll paraphrase instead.

Call it what you want, Jabba. Claiming to speak for any subset of the posters at this forum in some other venue is lying.

How dare you?

- I wouldn't be using you guys as human SHIELDS, I'd be using using you guys as human SPEARS

You don't use us as anything. Who the hell do you think you are?

-- i.e., the rest of the Shroudies don't feel "obliged" to answer my reservations, but they should feel obliged to answer yours.
--- Jabba

We aren't asking them any questions. You are.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating & Peer Reviewed

- So, one of the factors that both sides accept as relevant to evaluating the credibility of each side (pro and con Shroud validity) is “peer-review.” Both sides agree that in judging the quality (credibility/validity) of a particular paper, peer-reviewed papers automatically deserve some extra credit.
- Both sides do accept, however, that “peer-reviewed” papers, themselves, vary in their quality. I understand, for instance, that different publications vary in WHAT IS REQUIRED in their particular “peer-review”…
- Also, at least many papers presented at “Proceedings” claim to be peer-reviewed, but I don’t know how rigorous those reviews tend to be.
- I haven’t been able to find the link to the “review status” of different journals that someone had previously given to me, but I have found out that Chimica Oggi/Chemistry Today CLAIMS to be peer-reviewed -- though I’m not sure that Chimica Oggi/Chemistry Today is the same as the Chemistry Today that Benford and Marino published in below. Most likely, you guys will know the answer…

- Also, I need to learn more about “Impact Factor” and add that to my evaluation of the Journals being sited. You guys can probably fill me in on that as well…

- Anyway, the following is what I’ve been able to pull together regarding peer-reviewed papers supporting, or challenging, the carbon dating – so far. I’m presenting them now, before I’m really satisfied with my research, because I’ve taken so long to get this far.


- Supporting:
1) DAMON, P. E., et al - Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin [February 1989] Reprinted from Nature. (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
2) 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. (Haven’t been able to find any link to this.)
3) FREER-WATERS, Rachel A. - JULL, A. J. Timothy – Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon Vol 52, No.4, p. 1521-1527, December 2010. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3419, (abstract only)


- Challenging:
1) ROGERS, Raymond N. - Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin [January 20, 2005] Link to Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) pp.189-194. (http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)
2) M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino. New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch” in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud (2005) http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf
“Preface: This paper was peer-reviewed by two scholarly history journals, Viator and the
Journal of Medieval History. Neither journal suggested any major or substantive
corrections. The minor amendments suggested by the peer reviewers were included in
the final version of this paper.” (This seems to imply that this paper was never published by either journal…)
3) S. Benford, J. Marino, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud", Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4 / July–August 2008, p. 4-12, http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf.
4) Emmanuel Poulle, ″Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique″, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009/3-4. (Go to http://www.rhe.eu.com/pages/rhe195.asp for abstract. Not till the last sentence does the abstract indicate the challenge.)
5) G. Fanti, F. Crosilla, M. Riani, A.C. Atkinson, "A Robust statistical analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud radiocarbon analysis", Proceedings of the IWSAI, ENEA, 2010
6) Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti and Fabio Crosilla. Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, (April, 2012) Statistics and Computing. (Can’t get the final article, but the following seems to be the paper before publication -- http://www2.lse.ac.uk/statistics/res...C04May2010.pdf. The #5 paper above, and this paper, appear to be two different papers presented at the same "Proceedings" by the same people…)
7) Francisco Alconchel-Pecino, “A possible hypothesis for correcting the radiocarbon age of the Shroud of Turin,” Department of Applied Physics, Superior Technical School of Industrial Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain. 2012. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Alconchel-Pecino.pdf

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

From what do you conclude about this reluctance to answer questions?

Acleron,
- I don't really understand your question -- seems to me that there are two possible Meanings: 1) From what do you conclude this reluctance to answer questions? And, 2) What do you conclude about this reluctance to answer questions?
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating & Peer Reviewed

- For challenge #5 in post #3242 above, I could only get an abstract:
"The twelve results from the 1988 radio carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin show surprising heterogeneity. We try to explain this lack of homogeneity by regression on spatial coordinates. However, although the locations of the samples sent to the three laboratories involved are known, the locations of the 12 subsamples within these samples are not. We consider all 387,072 plausible spatial allocations and analyse the resulting distributions of statistics. Plots of robust regression residuals from the forward search indicate that some sets of allocations are implausible. We establish the existence of a trend in the results and suggest how better experimental design would have enabled stronger conclusions to have been drawn from this multi-centre experiment."
- This was provided at http://shroudstory.com/?s=A+Robust+statistical+analysis.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,
- OK. If I want to quote somebody, but can't get permission, I'll paraphrase instead.
- I wouldn't be using you guys as human SHIELDS, I'd be using using you guys as human SPEARS -- i.e., the rest of the Shroudies don't feel "obliged" to answer my reservations, but they should feel obliged to answer yours.
--- Jabba

Do you have any idea just how offensive this is, Jabba?
In light of the treatment we've received at that site, I find it in the worst possible taste that you would quote or paraphrase any of us without our permission.
I strenuously object to this treatment.

- So, one of the factors that both sides accept as relevant to evaluating the credibility of each side (pro and con Shroud validity) is “peer-review.” Both sides agree that in judging the quality (credibility/validity) of a particular paper, peer-reviewed papers automatically deserve some extra credit...

Both sides?

Why on earth have you listed among your sources papers which have been debunked here in this thread?

 

[Acleron]

Acleron,
- I don't really understand your question -- seems to me that there are two possible Meanings: 1) From what do you conclude this reluctance to answer questions? And, 2) What do you conclude about this reluctance to answer questions?
--- Jabba

Sorry about the confusion, 2) is what I meant.

 

[slyjoe]

- For challenge #5 in post #3242 above, I could only get an abstract:
"The twelve results from the 1988 radio carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin show surprising heterogeneity. We try to explain this lack of homogeneity by regression on spatial coordinates. However, although the locations of the samples sent to the three laboratories involved are known, the locations of the 12 subsamples within these samples are not. We consider all 387,072 plausible spatial allocations and analyse the resulting distributions of statistics. Plots of robust regression residuals from the forward search indicate that some sets of allocations are implausible. We establish the existence of a trend in the results and suggest how better experimental design would have enabled stronger conclusions to have been drawn from this multi-centre experiment."
- This was provided at http://shroudstory.com/?s=A+Robust+statistical+analysis.
--- Jabba

I would think a shroud researcher would pay the 40 bucks.

 

[zooterkin]

I would think a shroud researcher would pay the 40 bucks.

Ignoring compound interest, that's only $2 a year.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Someone once told me that it is only moderately disturbing if you find someone talking to themself, but it is really bad if you find someone arguing with themself.

Do yo realize that you've just transisted to the latter? Despite everyone here telling you that your new approach is illegitimate and offensive, you have decided to go off anyway and argue your distorted perception of our views essentially in front of a mirror. So you are going to present arguments you don't believe in or fully understand in front of a group of fellow pro-Shroud believers?

Well, at least this way you have to win the debate.

 

[Wolrab]

Since the dead body of Jesus was still bleeding when wrapped in the shroud, is there also stool and urine stains also? JAQ!

 

[Jabba]

Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

Sorry about the confusion, 2) is what I meant.

Acleron,
- One possibility is that they don't have good answers. Another possibility is that they have better things to do than answer my questions for me. In the second case, they should be more prone to answer if they see them as challenges originating from JREF.
--- Jabba

 

[slyjoe]

Ignoring compound interest, that's only $2 a year.

Yea, but then the education to understand it would be a lot more

 

[Acleron]

Jabba,

Someone once told me that it is only moderately disturbing if you find someone talking to themself, but it is really bad if you find someone arguing with themself.

Do yo realize that you've just transisted to the latter? Despite everyone here telling you that your new approach is illegitimate and offensive, you have decided to go off anyway and argue your distorted perception of our views essentially in front of a mirror. So you are going to present arguments you don't believe in or fully understand in front of a group of fellow pro-Shroud believers?

Well, at least this way you have to win the debate.

That's the way to beat a grand master at chess.

But the embarrassment if he lost both debates.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
--- Jabba

We've already discussed this, why are you wasting time with it again?

Why on earth have you listed among your sources papers which have been debunked here in this thread?

Because that's all he has.

 

[Aepervius]

We've already discussed this, why are you wasting time with it again?

Because that's all he has.

I think he is hoping (or thinking) that the more "paper" he cites, the winner.

There are naturally two problem with that approach : 1) theoretical paper with a "this was never used that way before and is only theoretical" vs experimental results 2) unpublished as a self made PDF vs published 3) throw away "hypothesis" without even a modicum of experimentation , vs accepted theoretical framework around 14C dating.

I like this one (chemical and art article):

Based on data obtained
from his analyses of samples from the
area, Rogers concluded that the combined
evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical
chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms
proved that the material from the
radiocarbon area of the Shroud is
significantly different from that of the
main cloth.

In keeping with this
objective, this paper includes
a critical evaluation and
related discussion of the
previously-unpublished
original four Quad-Mosaic
images to identify areas of
chemical correspondence
pertinent to the radiocarbon
sampling area.

Then the go to the invisible weave technics as if it was invisible.

*shrug*

Sindonist wil *never ever* accept the results and will make up all sort of hypothesis and claim. They are like creationist, same cloth actually (hehe).

 

[catsmate]

I think he is hoping (or thinking) that the more "paper" he cites, the winner.

There are naturally two problem with that approach : 1) theoretical paper with a "this was never used that way before and is only theoretical" vs experimental results 2) unpublished as a self made PDF vs published 3) throw away "hypothesis" without even a modicum of experimentation , vs accepted theoretical framework around 14C dating.

Then the go to the invisible weave technics as if it was invisible.

*shrug*

Sindonist wil *never ever* accept the results and will make up all sort of hypothesis and claim. They are like creationist, same cloth actually (hehe).

It's bizarre, Jabba/Rich doesn't seem to have even read the "papers" he's cited to support his claims. Or else he's too used to his fellow shroudies accepting everything without questioning or investigation.
He cites the rubbish from Benford and Marino again as it if has some actual status rather than being un-reviewed nonsense. Which we've dealt with before.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating & Peer Reviewed

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.
- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...
- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

Carbon dating/Devil's Advocate

- As far as I can tell, there is no rule against paraphrasing (with no names attached) (at http://shroudstory.com/2012/09/21/an-open-thread-for-rich-savage-questions/#comments) what I think is being said on this (Randi) forum.

- If there is, please let me know.

- I will submit all my paraphrasing here, for your "suggestions," before posting them at the other site (if I remember).

- Hopefully, some of my colleagues over there will start coming over here.

--- Jabba

 

[Resume]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.
- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.
- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...
- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

I guess I'll just jump in here to note that even if you totally disproved the accuracy of carbon dating, it still doesn't prove the authenticity of the shroud, that it was indeed the burial shroud of a Jesus that was alleged to be the Christ, or his alleged miraculous deeds.

So you still have that tough row to hoe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- You guys SAY that you've already debunked these things, but I don't agree.

That is your privilege.

- I ask you to point out just where you think they've been debunked -- so that I can think more seriously about them, and address your opposition -- but then, you say that I should remember them and that you're not going to do my work for me.

So, let me get this straight: You did not accept our arguments, and you have forgotten them, so you want us to repeat them all over for you?

Why should we do that? Is there much chance that you would accept (or understand) them a second time around?

- Anyway, point one of these out and I'll give you the most objective response I can muster -- maybe, I'll admit that you're right, or that you do have a point...

OK, then:

- Invisible patches are not invisible, and even if they exist, they will not impact the C14.

- Contamination must, to give the timing error in question, be so substantial that it is virtually impossible that it should be overlooked by a professional lab, let alone three.

You can start with those.

- Otherwise, I'll keep working on gathering up what I think is evidence that there is something wrong with the carbon dating.
--- Jabba

Any particular reason we should care?

Hans