Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[jond]

- Would you guys have been mad at me if I had said that I think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?
--- Jabba

Did you read Dinwar and Wollery's post? If so, why not simply address them instead of asking such an inane question? If not, why not?

 

[Monza]

I've joined this discussion late, so you'll have to forgive me for not having a clue what your problem with the C14 dating is. Could you just explain very simply why you think it's wrong?

Welcome, FergusM1970. You may want to sit back and get comfortable. While it is a good and logical question, I suspect Jabba will not respond as promptly as you may hope.

 

[FergusM1970]

Welcome, FergusM1970. You may want to sit back and get comfortable. While it is a good and logical question, I suspect Jabba will not respond as promptly as you may hope.

Ah well. If he can't explain why he thinks the C14 dating is wrong there isn't really much left to discuss, is there?

 

[Humots]

- Would you guys have been mad at me if I had said that I think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?
--- Jabba

If you had said "I think ..." it would have at least suggested that you were expressing an opinion rather than stating a forgone conclusion.

My degree of mad would then have depended on your response to a follow-up question: "WHY do you think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?"

If you had responded with some actual reason, even an inane one, I would have thought "typical Jabba nonsense".

If you had not responded, or responded with something like "I didn't say that ..., I only said that I thought that ..." then I would be mad and fed up.

As it is, I am mad and fed up that you said what you did, and then tried to pretend that you didn't "actually" say it. That's dishonest.

 

[wollery]

- Would you guys have been mad at me if I had said that I think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?
--- Jabba

What blinding?

STURP suggested blinding the samples, the scientists pointed out it would make the process more difficult, less accurate, and was superfluous to the process anyway. The idea was dropped.

 

[The Norseman]

What blinding?

STURP suggested blinding the samples, the scientists pointed out it would make the process more difficult, less accurate, and was superfluous to the process anyway. The idea was dropped.

But two labs decided to do it anyway probably to forestall these inanities.

 

[wollery]

I'm very familiar with UV/Vis/IR AND Raman spectroscopy, and I have no clue what it has to do with dating the shroud.

Raman is just an alternative approach for vibrational spectroscopy. It has different selection rules than IR, so it provides complimentary information to it.

Using alternative and complimentary properly in their literal sense.

Raman says nice things about IR?

 

[pgwenthold]

Raman says nice things about IR?

Absolutely. It's very anti-Stokes, however

 

[Belz...]

Ah well. If he can't explain why he thinks the C14 dating is wrong there isn't really much left to discuss, is there?

And yet we keep getting suckered right back in.

 

[FergusM1970]

And yet we keep getting suckered right back in.

I know. I think what it comes down to is that we don't want to believe anyone is really so stupid they can't see it. However we're wrong. Anyone who believes the shroud might be authentic is either:

a) Too stupid to realise what the C14 dating means, or
b) Lying.

There is no c)

 

[John Jones]

And yet we keep getting suckered right back in.

Lest the credulous lurkers get taken-in by all the JAQing off.

 

[pakeha]

It doesn't ???

So you think snide ad hominems constitute an "argument" ???



You know -- when I SAY that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position, I actually MEAN that I'm asking myself questions rather than advocating a particular position.

Some members in this forum might find it entertaining for their own reasons to throw a barrage of weighted, leading questions at me, and then pretend that whatever responses are given to explain the objections that some people are putting forward against the 14th century dating are mysteriously some sort of "proof" that I believe those things, and then proceed to deduce that they are therefore fully authorised to post vilifications of my character as a result of these FAULTY inferences that they've made -- well then NO, sorry, that does NOT provide me with a positive impression of their analytical methodology.

Particularly when they pretend this to be a product of scientific reason.

Particularly when they COMPLETELY refrain from addressing any of the papers that they have so unhelpfully demanded of me, unhelpfully AKA they weren't actually even interested in reading them in the first place, as they had obviously made up their minds on the questions already.

And when I posted "the contents found at XXX are NOT scientific", their reaction to this is "ooooh loook at the moron who believes XXX" --- notwithstanding that I explicitly denounced it as unscientific.

No -- these sorts of juvenile antics do NOT induce respect.

Right.
Would you fix that broken link, please.
Other than the tv programme the Roger's paper, it's the only evidence you've posted up and I'd like to read it.

There are only so many rocks that you can throw at a dog til it starts biting back.

You have a 'report' button if you feel you've been unrightfully insulted.

Having spent some time in the outskirts of the specialist fashion, costume, and fabric University milieu, I have acquired the assumption that it is safer to assume that a specialist working in that field is of dubious competence.

In 90% of cases, the assumption will be accurate.

90%+ of those with ANY degree of skill in the discipline go and work in cinema or TV costume departments, or with the Fashion houses.

You know -- where they have something called money to pay people with.

The research discipline is plagued with microscopic funding, an almost complete lack of facilities, petty in-fighting, and petty jealousies.

In Italy, also, the research positions are provided almost exclusively through nepotism.

A bit of context:

Paheka asked:



To which you replied:



Since your post was indirect response to a question about whether you, personally, think that Mme. Fleury-Lembert is competent, it does, in fact appear to implicate Mme. F-L. You may claim it does not, but you ought to be aware of its appearance.

How shall I take your post, then? Is there some other recognized textile authority associated with working on the medieval artifact, in Italy, 'gainst whom your canon is leveled? Is it just a bit of drive-by well-poisoning?

Do you find Mme. F-L's work competent? Trustworthy? Do you find the work of some other textile authority who has had actual access to the cloth more compelling?

So, JabbaPapa, are you saying you judge Mme. Flury-Lemburg without having seen any evidence of her 'incompetence'?

Is there even a modern method of weaving that can make restoration work invisible from both sides? I seem to recall people saying up-thread that there wasn't, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

Not just people, but professionals and experts on the subject.

 

[John Jones]

There are only so many rocks that you can throw at a dog til it starts biting back.

Who is throwing rocks at dogs?

If someone were, the hit dog yelps loudest.

How's that for a down-home rejoinder?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ah well. If he can't explain why he thinks the C14 dating is wrong there isn't really much left to discuss, is there?

Welcome, Fergus! Thank you for your Gordian clarity.

Pull up a chair...

 

[John Jones]

- Would you guys have been mad at me if I had said that I think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?
--- Jabba

Mad is not the correct word. Disgusted, angry, revolted, and repulsed would be more accurate descriptions of the opinions I have for you based on your conduct on this thread.

 

[John Jones]

Mad is not the correct word. Disgusted, angry, revolted, and repulsed would be more accurate descriptions of the opinions I have for you based on your conduct on this thread.

I want to hear more about vanillin and ancient fibers.

 

[Dinwar]

This is complete bloody RUBBISH.

You're clearly just projecting your own fantasies onto me.

These fantasies are worthless.

Prove me wrong.

Prove that the C14 dating--the most well controlled sample ever bloody taken--is wrong.

Until you can do that, the rest of your arguments are meaningless. The cloth, by all rational standards, is a 14th century item--which means (by the principle of superposition) that the image can be AT THE OLDEST a 14th century image.

And if you can't, you're rejecting rock-solid evidence (actually, in my opinion MORE THAN rock solid--I've taken structural geology) in favor of the most vacuous and spurious arguments possible. This can ONLY happen if you have an a priori conclusion you're attempting to support.

But let's hear it. Let's hear your reason for rejectin gthe C14 dating. Otherwise, you've got nothing. Period.

- Would you guys have been mad at me if I had said that I think that everyone involved accepted that the "blinding" was ineffective?

I'm not mad at you. I gave up investing emotionally in your seeing the truth a hundred pages ago. I, and others here, simply have called you out on your lies. The fact that you see something as basic as saying "No, that's not true" as anger merely proves my point that the shroud is an idol to you.

And no, I'd still have had exactly the same reaction. Well, no, it'd have been worse. At least the way you originally stated it you weren't being a coward (hiding behind "I said 'I think', so you can't get upset!!!" is cowardly). The simple truth is NO ONE OTHER THAN YOU BELIEVES THAT THE STANDARD SAMPELS OR BLINDING PROTOCOLS WERE INEFFECTIVE. Given that such blinding is not a standard part of C14 dating, and there are very good reasons for this, your objection to the blinding is evidence of an a priori bias, rather than a rational evaluation of the protocols. The fact that you demonstrably do not have a high-school graduate understanding of C14 dating (by California's standards) is further proof.

There are only so many rocks that you can throw at a dog til it starts biting back.

True. However, as a scientist I feel obligated to act better than a dog. You'll notice that Jabba has accused ME of fraud on no one but several occasions--every time he says that C14 dating isn't accurate, he's accusing ME, personally, as someone who has taken these samples, of defrauding my clients. I'll leave it to Jabba to say how many times I've bitten him. Barked a lot, yeah--you accuse a scientist of fraud and they'll tend to get upset--but never bitten.

Is there even a modern method of weaving that can make restoration work invisible from both sides? I seem to recall people saying up-thread that there wasn't, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

I looked into the concept of invisible patches up-thread, and linked to my results. The answer? No, there isn't. NOTHING can make a patch invisible upon careful examination by any competant observer--whether they're textile experts or not. The issue is, you're always going to have a line where the threads are doubled. The eye will naturally be drawn to that line, and thus the line will be visible. It is inevitable, given the nature of any sort of patching--the only way around it is to actually re-spin the fibers, something that as far as I can tell can't be done, and something no expert in textile repair (meaning those hwo actually engage in this activity and are paid for it, either as academics or profesionals) has ever mentioned as viable in my research.

So, no. There's no way to make a truly invisible patch, using even modern technology, in organic fibers (obviously something like fiber optics, which can be welded, would be an exception, but an irrelevant one as no one is discussing the shroud being made of glass shards).

 

[Elind]

This thread really should be in the conspiracy forum.

 

[John Jones]

What Dinwar said.

 

[Akri]

Not just people, but professionals and experts on the subject.

I looked into the concept of invisible patches up-thread, and linked to my results. The answer? No, there isn't. NOTHING can make a patch invisible upon careful examination by any competant observer--whether they're textile experts or not. The issue is, you're always going to have a line where the threads are doubled. The eye will naturally be drawn to that line, and thus the line will be visible. It is inevitable, given the nature of any sort of patching--the only way around it is to actually re-spin the fibers, something that as far as I can tell can't be done, and something no expert in textile repair (meaning those hwo actually engage in this activity and are paid for it, either as academics or profesionals) has ever mentioned as viable in my research.

So, no. There's no way to make a truly invisible patch, using even modern technology, in organic fibers (obviously something like fiber optics, which can be welded, would be an exception, but an irrelevant one as no one is discussing the shroud being made of glass shards).

That's what I thought. Thanks for the replies. (And Dinwar, do you really want to provide fuel for the Shroudy CT arguments? )