Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Dinwar]

(And Dinwar, do you really want to provide fuel for the Shroudy CT arguments? )

In my defence, I've had a few glasses of wine.

Particularly when they COMPLETELY refrain from addressing any of the papers that they have so unhelpfully demanded of me,

Minor point: This is yet another lie. Those papers have already been addressed. What we're doing is refraining from addressing them FOR THE FOURTH TIME, at least. Read the thread. Roger's "work" has been debunked so completely that the shroud believers are embarised by it, and the vanilline argument is so fraught with error that no one on either side that has any shred of respect for rationality and science accepts it.

The fact that you, JabbaPapa, can't be bothered to read the discussion in no way obligates us to rehash more than a year's worth of arguments. The fact that you are arrogant and lazy (no ad hom here--there's no other way to describe jumping in to a year-long conversation and demanding that we all treat your arguments as brand new) in no way makes us obliged to make live easier to you. There's a cost of entry into this conversation, which consists of reading the thread. Once you do that, you can expect us to treat your arguments as valid. Until then, I for one am going to take pot-shots at you, which is more than you have earned.

 

[pakeha]

JabbaPapa, I'm waiting for a working link to the paper you claim addresses the issue of invisible patching.

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)

Actually there IS a c).
Being a victim of the persuasive talents of a conman.

I want to hear more about vanillin and ancient fibers.

Don't forget the bioplastic polymers!

...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).

Not yet, anyway!

This thread really should be in the conspiracy forum.

Interesting you would say that, Elind because I think the mindset of the Shroudies is akin to chem-trail aficionados.

 

[Acleron]

JabbaPapa, I'm waiting for a working link to the paper you claim addresses the issue of invisible patching.




Actually there IS a c).
Being a victim of the persuasive talents of a conman.



Don't forget the bioplastic polymers!



Not yet, anyway!



Interesting you would say that, Elind because I think the mindset of the Shroudies is akin to chem-trail aficionados.

I think the mindset is a common aspect of all who prize belief over evidence. Their personal experience becomes evidence that trumps all else. Their arrogance is that they are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong, lying or stupid. Their belief allows them to be spectacularly proven wrong and to ignore it, an experience that would be awful to a skeptic is literally ignored. This can be seen in alt-medders, conspiracy theorists and religious believers. Of course, among them are the scammers who have a financial interest in the lack of reality.

That's not to say that skeptics cannot be arrogant, wrong or stupid. It just appears to be rarer and self correcting. Disagreement among skeptics is common and allows meaningful debate, the believers rarely debate among themselves, maintaining agreement even when their views contradict.

By contesting the believer you will only rarely change their mind. The virtue in doing it is to further explore the possibilities and leave a record that any open minded individual can examine.

 

[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...

Humots,
- But, I did. See 5138 -- that's where it all started.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

Absolutely. It's very anti-Stokes, however

I love this forum, where else do your find spectroscopy jokes.

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.

As JP is look lazy/unwilling to fix his link here it is; Invisible Mending and the Turin Shroud: Historical and Scientific Evidence by Joseph Marino and M. Sue Benford.
It's the same crap that we covered last year from the pair of kooky pyramidiots, though it's missing that interesting picture where they mistook a JPEG artifact for a "missing corner".
They still unquestioningly parrot Rogers rubbish.

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

Well he's quite willing to criticise the radiocarbon dating without any support so why not.
Of course in addition to Mme. Flury-Lemburg he's also ignoring/decrying the work done by Professors Testore (professor of textile technology at Turin), Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum) and Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory) who were (along with others) part of the month long examination of the cloth before the sampling for the radiocarbon dating was performed.
No doubt JP will be supplying reasons why his expertise trumps theirs soon.

 

[IanS]

Humots,
- But, I did. See 5138 -- that's where it all started.
--- Jabba

Jabba, I think the reason people are objecting to what you said about the controls, is that your reply to Pixel42 in post #1538 was a reply to a question asking you about the authenticity of the dates reported by the three C14 labs. I asked you to clarify that in post #5485, and you replied “Yes” (post #5490).


IOW, you appear to be saying that the three labs must have conspired to deliberately falsify their dates.


That's probably why people think your replies on this point are unsatisfactory.

 

[zooterkin]

Humots,
- But, I did. See 5138 -- that's where it all started.
--- Jabba

Giving post numbers is not terribly helpful (even ignoring the fact that they can change if posts get deleted).

Here's the post:

It is not only true that scientists are as likely to be biased as everybody else but scientists know it to be true, which is why they invented the scientific method to eliminate the effect of those biases.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the scientists' biases could have led them to not properly test, and hence get the wrong date for, the shroud sample and yet properly test and get the right date for all the control samples when they didn't know which was which.

Pixel,
- I think that everyone involved accepts that the control samples were not effective.
--- Jabba

You did indeed say "I think". You still need to retract it, since as has been explained it was totally wrong.

 

[Jabba]

-From Ian in 5485, "So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?"

Jabba, I think the reason people are objecting to what you said about the controls, is that your reply to Pixel42 in post #1538 was a reply to a question asking you about the authenticity of the dates reported by the three C14 labs. I asked you to clarify that in post #5485, and you replied “Yes” (post #5490).


IOW, you appear to be saying that the three labs must have conspired to deliberately falsify their dates.


That's probably why people think your replies on this point are unsatisfactory.

Ian,
- I do appreciate your explanation, and I didn't mean to imply anything about a conspiracy. Gotta go.
- But, I'll be back.
--- Jabba
-

 

[Slowvehicle]

-From Ian in 5485, "So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?"
Ian,
- I do appreciate your explanation, and I didn't mean to imply anything about a conspiracy. Gotta go.
- But, I'll be back.
--- Jabba
-

Rich:

If you did not mean to "imply a conspiracy", what are you on about?

It is clear that the only counter you offer for the ¹⁴C date is that you do not like it--you want the cloth to be the True Shroud^TM, and the medieval date obviates that possibility.

Are you, in fact, suggesting massive, parallel incompetence, but incompetence that somehow only manifested itself in relation to testing the cloth, not the myriad other datings each of the three labs has done?

Are you, instead, suggesting independent dishonesty, not part of a conspiracy, by each of the three labs, resulting in coincidentally similar false dates?

Please to explain.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I think the reason people are objecting to what you said about the controls, is that your reply to Pixel42 in post #1538 was a reply to a question asking you about the authenticity of the dates reported by the three C14 labs. I asked you to clarify that in post #5485 (see below), and you replied “Yes” (post #5490).

"So you are suggesting that the C14 scientists may have been biased against authenticity of the shroud?"

IOW, you appear to be saying that the three labs must have conspired to deliberately falsify their dates.
That's probably why people think your replies on this point are unsatisfactory.

Ian,
- I do appreciate your explanation, and I didn't mean to imply anything about a conspiracy. Gotta go.
- But, I'll be back.
--- Jabba-

Ian (& Slowvehicle),

- My meeting got postponed, and I'm back.

- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

Ian (& Slowvehicle),

- My meeting got postponed, and I'm back.

- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

--- Jabba

All very nice, but still lacking the key words:

Sorry. I was wrong about everyone's belief regarding the ineffectiveness of the control.

Think you can say that?

 

[Jabba]

Zoo,

- The following should show, pretty much, from whence I come...

1. I WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I.E., I am not impartial.
2. I TEND TO BELIEVE in “precognition” and other “supernatural” phenomena.
3. I TEND TO BELIEVE that the Bible is prophetic.
4. I DO BELIEVE that there is much more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye. (I try to begin spelling that out at http://messiahornot.com/.)
5. I DO BELIEVE that there is a “God” – or, a reasonable facsimile thereof…
5.1. I DO BELIEVE that we are sort of "temples" of God,
5.2. I DO BELIEVE that we are "expressions" of God.
5.3. I DO BELIEVE that "God" is Aldous Huxley's "Great Mind at Large, and Quantum Mechanic's consciousness at large.

6. I TEND TO BELIEVE that the Shroud is authentic
7. I DON’T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF “FAITH” in either God, or Jesus – but, would like to...
8. The more I believe that the Shroud is authentic, THE MORE “FAITH” I HAVE IN GOD AND JESUS… (That's why I'd like the Shroud to be authentic.)


9. I DO BELIEVE that we are all immortal.
10. I ALSO BELIEVE that
10.1. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
10.2. You can’t get here from there using reductionistic thinking.
10.3. Reality is alive, conscious, free and ultimately meaningful – it is “magical.”
10.4. Holistic thinking finds the magic.
10.5. Love is the bottom line.
10.6. We humans tend to look right through the implications all around us, and miss the magic.

--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian (& Slowvehicle),

- My meeting got postponed, and I'm back.

- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

--- Jabba

Does this mean that you are retracting your continued implication that the testers at three independent labs were incompetent, or dishonest, or both?

Why do you think rigorous science would settle on a medieval date; more important, why do you thing three different labs would be biased toward a medieval date? Seriously--even if the ¹⁴C dating had indicated a first-century provenance for the cloth, that does not answer the myriad other objections to the cloth being the True Shroud^TM. A skeptical leaning about that cloth would involve no more (and no less) that a determination to let the evidence (rather than your presuppositions) determine the result.

It keeps coming back to the fact that you do not like the medieval date, and, since there is not evidence that the medieval date is incorrect, all you can do is allude to collusion, incompetence, dishonesty, or some combination of the three.

Suppose you simply indicate which one, or which combination, you suspect?

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- But, I did. See 5138 -- that's where it all started.
--- Jabba

My apologies. You did say "I think..."

However, you do still need to retract your statement.

Ian (& Slowvehicle),

- At the time of my original comment, I assumed that there must be at least one somewhat subjective decision to be made by the researchers after the protocols. (There is lots of room for subjectivity in determining the protocols, but I don't think that blinding can be applied when selecting protocols.)
- I assumed this (above the parentheses) because, 1) The scientists selecting the protocols had included Blinding; 2) Subjectivity has a way of sneaking into apparently objective procedures (for instance, the care given to the surrounding statistics can reflect bias); 3) I did expect the scientists involved to lean significantly towards the skeptical side; 4) Human drives and consequent behaviors tend to be significantly subconscious (there's no need for conspiracy in such things -- we humans naturally lean towards one side or another, and our lean has a big effect upon our subsequent behavior); and, 5) Gove apparently got STURP excluded from the research because he believed them to be biased.

--- Jabba

That's a lot of assumed and expect and tend and apparently. Also, why do all of these cautions apply to scientists and skeptics but not to shroud supporters?

 

[jond]

Zoo,

- The following should show, pretty much, from whence I come...

1. I WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I.E., I am not impartial.

--- Jabba

Didn't you say upthread a bit that you were less biased than the scientists that did the testing? Did you follow the link someone posted indicating that the scientists in question actually wanted the shroud to date to the first century CE?

You still haven't responded in any way to Dinwar and Wollery's posts which explained why the whole "blinding" issue is a non-factor.

Jabba, seriously: everyone know that you have a desperate need for the shroud to be authentic. The facts, however, very much run counter to it. Let it go. It really isn't healthy for you. Try opening your mind to the possibility that it is a fake--you'll be amazed how much clearer you can see things.

 

[Jabba]

All very nice, but still lacking the key words:

Sorry. I am wrong about everyone's belief regarding the ineffectiveness of the control.

Think you can say that?

Garrette,
- Even if I am technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.
- And also, I need to understand some things first in order to accept that I am technically wrong about it. For instance, how are control samples used in calibration?
--- Jabba

 

[Akri]

Garrette,
- Even if I was technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.
- And also, I need to understand some things first in order to accept that I was technically wrong. For instance, how are control samples used in calibration?
--- Jabba

Dinwar and Wollery (I think--sorry if I got posters mixed up here) have gone into quite a bit of detail about this a few pages back.

And you don't actually need to understand how control samples are used. You claim wasn't merely that they were ineffective, but that everyone involved thought they were ineffective. So if you can't prove that everyone involved found them ineffective you need to apologize for making a false statement, and for attributing an opinion to others that they did not hold.

Edit: and you're not "technically wrong", you're just wrong. It's not a technicality.

 

[carlitos]

• Cast aspersions on professionals doing their jobs.
• Then don't apologize.
• And then, ask how control samples are used for the thing you criticized without knowing how it works.

Very honest approach.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Garrette,
- Even if I am technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.
- And also, I need to understand some things first in order to accept that I am technically wrong about it. For instance, how are control samples used in calibration?
--- Jabba

Rich:

What are you on about?

Were the labs that performed the ¹⁴C dating incompetent, in cahoots, or just independently untrustworthy?

ETA: "Even" if you are "technically" wrong? You made a clearly wrong bald assertion; an assertion you have neither supported not retracted.

 

[zooterkin]

Zoo,

- The following should show, pretty much, from whence I come...

1. I WANT the Shroud to be authentic. I.E., I am not impartial.
2. I TEND TO BELIEVE in “precognition” and other “supernatural” phenomena.
3. I TEND TO BELIEVE that the Bible is prophetic.
4. I DO BELIEVE that there is much more to the Jesus concept/story than first meets the rational eye. (I try to begin spelling that out at http://messiahornot.com/.)
5. I DO BELIEVE that there is a “God” – or, a reasonable facsimile thereof…
5.1. I DO BELIEVE that we are sort of "temples" of God,
5.2. I DO BELIEVE that we are "expressions" of God.
5.3. I DO BELIEVE that "God" is Aldous Huxley's "Great Mind at Large, and Quantum Mechanic's consciousness at large.

6. I TEND TO BELIEVE that the Shroud is authentic
7. I DON’T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF “FAITH” in either God, or Jesus – but, would like to...
8. The more I believe that the Shroud is authentic, THE MORE “FAITH” I HAVE IN GOD AND JESUS… (That's why I'd like the Shroud to be authentic.)


9. I DO BELIEVE that we are all immortal.
10. I ALSO BELIEVE that
10.1. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
10.2. You can’t get here from there using reductionistic thinking.
10.3. Reality is alive, conscious, free and ultimately meaningful – it is “magical.”
10.4. Holistic thinking finds the magic.
10.5. Love is the bottom line.
10.6. We humans tend to look right through the implications all around us, and miss the magic.

--- Jabba

Well, thank you for those; can't say they're all that surprising, though I'm struggling to see how it's a response to anything I said.