Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Humots]

Belz,
- You're probably right -- .99+? But that's my point -- I don't know that you're right. I don't know that you actually exist. But, I do know (100%) that I exist.
--- Jabba

Let me see if I follow this. Since the only thing you only know 100% is that you exist, then you are saying that you are free to doubt anything else on that basis?

I don't know 100% that you can't fly. It is only "probabalistic" (sic) that you can't. Since "probabilistic" is not sufficient for you to doubt the shroud, does that mean I am free to push you out a window, and after you hit the ground say "I wasn't sure he couldn't fly?"

IIRC, a hoax believer at the ApolloHoax site said that not knowing with absolute Descartian certainty that the Moon landings occurred is sufficient reason to doubt that they happened. No need to talk about non-parallel shadows, no visible stars, or invisible wires. Do you agree with this?

The claim that the shroud is genuine is extraordinary, and must be verified with 99+% probability, not 1 - 99+% probability.

 

[Olowkow]

A solipsist. I suspected this. Impossible to argue with a solipsist. [/thread]

Jabba:: I don't know that you actually exist. But, I do know (100%) that I exist.

.

As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner.

 

[Susheel]

Does this mean the thread is done?

 

[Akhenaten]

Does this mean the thread is done?

Probabalistically.

 

[Resume]

Slowvehicle,

- There is only one thing that I know for sure -- I exist. Everything else is probabalistic.

- Following are my best guesses at the different specific issues re a patch and patching:
1. I'm 99% convinced that "invisible French re-weaving" (the Frenway method) is not responsible for the carbon date arrived at.
2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
3. At this point, my belief that a "patch" was involved, and responsible for the dating, is an amorphous toss-up -- I'm not convinced that those responsible for the sample selected, and those doing the recovery, did the testing necessary to preclude a patch.
4. I'm probably 75% convinced, however, that the sample is not representative of the greater Shroud.

--- Jabba

I'm eleventy-sixth% convinced that these percentages you posit are not probabalistically procured but perhaps pulled from your posterior.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Probabalistically.

I suspect you have reached an erroneous conclusion through only sampling a part of this thread where there has been invisible patching from newer threads. If you read back through the whole thread, I predict that you won't be able to see the join, which is strong evidence in my favour. I am 99.275926457% certain of this.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>
2. I'm probably 80% convinced, however, that there was some sort of patching done on and around the carbon dating sample.
<snip>

Why do you believe this when is clearly in contradiction to the evidence?

- Various scientists have found some patching on threads allegedly taken from the sampling area.

Garbage.

<snippage of long debunked crap>
--- Jabba

We've covered Rogers' crap before. Stop wasting our time recycling it.

I think it is well beyond the "hinting" stage at the moment.

In particular, the whole secret "invisible patch" thing is completely based on a conspiracy. The Vatican did an invisible patch on that section of the cloth, but won't admit it.

Or they don't know about it? So someone patched the shroud, and didn't tell the vatican about it?

That's a conspiracy, and it's not even subtle.

The whole "invisible patch" line completely begs the question of why it was done (which has been asked many times) and why it is secret.

I thought he favoured the theory that the Vatican (with the connivance of the British Museum representative) switched the samples?
Also rubbish of course.

The same Rogers who has already been thoroughly discredited in this thread?

That's him.

Squeegee,
- Show me where on this thread. A lot has been said ostensibly "discrediting" Rogers, but where has this discrediting been convincing?
--- Jabba

Convincing to you or to rational people, able (and willing) to accept reality.

Some of the participants in the sample-take procedure were true believers, right? And were they likely to say, "No, don't take a sample from there; that's a place that hasn't been patched. Take it from over there, where it has. That way, the sample will appear to be much newer than 100AD, and the cloth will look like a Medieval forgery."?

The area sampled for the radiocarbon dating is the same area previously used for various other tests, a fact that shroudies tend to gloss over. It was specifically selected, and agreed to in advance, because it had been studied so extensively.
The scientists involved in the sampling didn't just decide on the day the strip was removed where to cut.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

Rich:

Why do you 1) presume to cavil at what has been called "the most supervised ¹⁴C dating ever", with its multiple labs, observed protocols, and clear chain of evidence; yet 2) champion Rogers, pretending you are "not convinced" by the things than make his claims, at best, dubious--including (but not limited to) his kitchen-chemistry "analyses" and the dubious provenance of his samples? Seriously...

Slowvehicle,

- Good questions in that they identify basic issues -- and, they are not easy to answer...
- Re #1, I have a couple of questions myself. 1) Just for the sake of trying to make our discourse as academically unassailable as possible, who are you quoting? And 2) does "most supervised" mean -- most carefully monitored and controlled?
- If so, I accept that there were a lot of respected scientists trying to keep everything (again) as academically unassailable as possible. I think that, unfortunately, 1) there were too many egos in the kitchen; 2) the artifact involved was held sacred by the church; and 3) even scientists tend to be significantly biased and hard-headed.
- I'll have to get to your other points, separately.

--- Jabba

 

[Mashuna]

<snip>
I think that, unfortunately, 1) there were too many egos in the kitchen; 2) the artifact involved was held sacred by the church; and 3) even scientists tend to be significantly biased and hard-headed.
- I'll have to get to your other points, separately.

--- Jabba

I'm intrigued, do you really think you've answered Slowvehicle's questions here? Because 1) too many egos in the kitchen isn't actually an objection; 2) 'held sacred by the church' also isn't an objection; and 3) the accusation of bias in science is a false objection that you've made in the past and been called on.

 

[Jabba]

I'm intrigued, do you really think you've answered Slowvehicle's questions here? Because 1) too many egos in the kitchen isn't actually an objection; 2) 'held sacred by the church' also isn't an objection; and 3) the accusation of bias in science is a false objection that you've made in the past and been called on.

Mashuna,
- Re #1, what I mean is that ego's bring emotion, and stifle objectivity. Do you disagree?
--- Jabba

 

[carlitos]

Jabba / Ignoring Posts / Again / silly buggers

Here is another demo, very simple and much easier to clean up. Lie supine, on a hard floor, with your arms at your sides, in comfortable clothing. Relax, so that your shoulders touch the floor.
Now. Without lifting your shoulders from the floor, grasp the back of your right wrist with your left hand. Observe that your genitalia are not covered; observe that your right fingers do not reach to your left hipbone. If you have long, flowing hair, notice where it is (hint: it will NOT be flowing horizontally, onto your shoulders...).

Jabba,

When you performed the above test, what was the result?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

When you performed the above test, what was the result?

Carlitos,
- I accepted Slowvehicle's implication -- just that according to the people on my side, the shoulders of the victim would have naturally been raised.
--- Jabba

 

[Mashuna]

Mashuna,
- Re #1, what I mean is that ego's bring emotion, and stifle objectivity. Do you disagree?
--- Jabba

So what is your specific objection? Is your claim that there were too many strong-willed people involved in the testing, which led to entrenched positions before the testing started, which made them either falsify the results or not perform the testing properly? Because as it stands, this is just insinuation, not an actual objection. It's like me saying that your side are worried that the shroud is a fake, and that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side therefore you're all in league with Darth Vader. Which, looking at your avatar, may well be true.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Re #1, what I mean is that ego's bring emotion, and stifle objectivity. Do you disagree?

- I accepted Slowvehicle's implication -- just that according to the people on my side, the shoulders of the victim would have naturally been raised.

When you're openly talking about people in terms of whose side they're on, I'd say that complaints about the objectivity of others might ring just a little hollow.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

Rich:

Why do you presume to cavil at what has been called "the most supervised ¹⁴C dating ever", with its multiple labs, observed protocols, and clear chain of evidence; yet champion Rogers, pretending you are "not convinced" by the things than make his claims, at best, dubious--including (but not limited to) his kitchen-chemistry "analyses" and the dubious provenance of his samples? Seriously...

Slowvehicle,
- Re "multiple labs," while on the face of it, three labs should be plenty, I can quickly think of at least three potential problems: the labs only used one carbon dating technique, none of the labs were allowed to do the chemical testing to make sure that the sample was representative of the greater cloth and they all shared the same small piece of suspect fabric.
--- Jabba

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- Re "multiple labs," while on the face of it, three labs should be plenty, I can quickly think of at least three potential problems: the labs only used one carbon dating technique, none of the labs were allowed to do the chemical testing to make sure that the sample was representative of the greater cloth and they all shared the same small piece of suspect fabric.
--- Jabba

I submit that you are not qualified to determine the veracity and appropriateness of the 14C dating techniques, and you have presented no decent evidence that the piece of fabric was suspect - exxcept in the eyes of people like you who made up their mind before looking at the evidence.

You may have been asked before, but I'll ask again: What if anything would make you accept the fact that the shroud dates to the 14th century?

 

[Jabba]

So what is your specific objection? Is your claim that there were too many strong-willed people involved in the testing, which led to entrenched positions before the testing started, which made them either falsify the results or not perform the testing properly?...

Mashuna,
- Not so much that they would deliberately falsify the results due to their biases and emotionality -- but, they may be led by their biases and emotionality to not perform the testing properly (their statistics sound suspect, for instance), and to not do some of the important "peripheral" testing (for instance, someone made sure that STURP not be involved with its proposed multiple testing, and no one did the basic chemical testing that could have made sure the sample was representative of the greater cloth).
--- Jabba

 

[Agatha]

Slowvehicle,
- Re "multiple labs," while on the face of it, three labs should be plenty, I can quickly think of at least three potential problems: the labs only used one carbon dating technique

What methods do you claim they should have used? How many carbon dating techniques do you believe were in common use (or even known) at the time of the testing?

none of the labs were allowed to do the chemical testing to make sure that the sample was representative of the greater cloth

What sort of testing do you claim they should have done? Explain, please.

and they all shared the same small piece of suspect fabric.

Because that was what the Vatican, who had a vested interest in finding a 1st century date, decided was the best way to date the cloth, and they ensured that the area was representative in terms of there being no repair or patching and no scorching.

It seems as though your claim is now that the cut portion is somehow not representative of the entire shroud. However, the radiography and transmitted light images done by STuRP in 1978 clearly show that the portion which was later cut is representative of the cloth, in that the natural striping of the linen continues evenly and uninterrupted through the cloth (including the later cut area) except where the obvious patches are.

Given that plenty of people (religious and scientific) were involved in the decision of where to cut and in the actual cutting process, and that they ensured that the area was free of mending, patching or scorching, how do you intend to evidence this claim? It's your burden of proof, as you are the one claiming the cut piece isn't representative of the whole cloth.

The Raes sample, on the other hand, may not even be from the shroud as there is no clear chain of custody.

Remember that the evidence comes first. Then, and only then, do you start with a theory which explains all the evidence. You are starting from a theory and then looking for evidence which supports it, and in the process you are ignoring or discarding evidence which doesn't fit your pet theory. This is not how science is done.

 

[Jabba]

When you're openly talking about people in terms of whose side they're on, I'd say that complaints about the objectivity of others might ring just a little hollow.

Recovering Agnostic,

- I'm just admitting that I'm "significantly" biased. Personally, of course, I think that you guys are even more biased. You guys don't just disagree with the latter, you think it's a joke.

- When I run into Lord Acton's claim about "power corrupting," I figure he was trying to convey just how universal that is. I think he was saying that no one can escape that rule...
- When I complain about we humans' lack of objectivity, I'm marveling about how universal and insidious that lack is. Once into a debate, as objective as we think we are, we just want to win. That's our animal, and human, nature.
- I've been studying this for a long time, and figure that I've learned to dilute that urge a little.

--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- Good questions in that they identify basic issues -- and, they are not easy to answer...
- Re #1, I have a couple of questions myself. 1) Just for the sake of trying to make our discourse as academically unassailable as possible, who are you quoting? And 2) does "most supervised" mean -- most carefully monitored and controlled?
- If so, I accept that there were a lot of respected scientists trying to keep everything (again) as academically unassailable as possible. I think that, unfortunately, 1) there were too many egos in the kitchen; 2) the artifact involved was held sacred by the church; and 3) even scientists tend to be significantly biased and hard-headed.
- I'll have to get to your other points, separately.

--- Jabba

Oh, Rich...

It is odd to watch you pretend to want academic unassailability when you have no problem re-posting discredited third-hand sources.
You want "academically unassailable"? Do your reading in primary sources.

You want "academically unassailable"? Fit your opinions to the facts, rather than cherry-picking dubious interpretations of "facts" to fit your desperately-desired conclusion.

The fact that I did not provide a rigorous citation for the "most supervised" quote should have been a clue that it was a characterization of several posts on this thread, not an academically unassailable formal debate point. Dinwar and others have pointed out to you just how far above and beyond most practices the controls for the ¹⁴C dating protocols were. I was informally referring to all of that. Monitored, observed, controlled, labeled, tested--take your pick. Are you claiming that you do not remember those posts, or that you did not see them, or that you disagree with that characterization?

To make my point as plain as possible: the samples of the cloth dated by the three labs were witnessed, taken from a well-examined and previously agreed-upon area, and independently tested.

Are you claiming that the three labs were incompetent? Please explain why.

Are you claiming that the labs were dishonest? Please provide a scintilla of evidence for this scurrilous calumny.

Why are you not just as suspicious of the other cloth dated by the Arizona Lab?

Would fewer scientists involved have made you more confident? (If so, why do you keep harping on the reduction of the number of labs involved?)

How is it that you are willing to allege hanky-panky* about the actual samples that were actually witnessed being taken from the actual medieval artifact and actually tested by actual labs; by referring to scraps and threads "allegedly" taken from the cloth with no chain of evidence, supposedly taken out of the approved samples without permission, and subjected to kitchen chemistry after having been affixed to adhesive tape?

Shall we speak of being hard-headed? Of being biased toward an unsupported conclusion? Do you own a mirror?

I agree that ego gets in the way. Your own ego, for instance, fueling your desperate need to cling to the slightest pretense of false hope, keeps you from seeing the problems with your approach. Have you even done the "Shroud Slouch^TM demo? Would you be willing to try a different "flowing hair" demo?

I'm trying to be patient, but seriously: what do you THINK you are achieving, claiming that the fact that the cloth "was held sacred by the church"? Did the Vatican conspire to hide the real date of the cloth?

I wish that you would just come clean, and state your case.

*legitimate scientific term