Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Belz...]

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.

We already know this. The question is WHY, and would it be so bad if you didn't want it to be authentic ?

 

[Belz...]

Garrette,
- Even if I am technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.

You accused the scientists of fraud and bias.

Sheesh.

Also, you just admitted to being biased yourself. Perhaps you should deal with the beam in your eye, first.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

I'm kind of wondering if argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well are still logical fallacies when you do them to yourself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm kind of wondering if argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well are still logical fallacies when you do them to yourself.

More like a confiteor, no? Maybe an auto-da-fe?

 

[Garrette]

Garrette,
- Even if I am technically wrong about that, I still don't think there is any reason to apologize.

I didn't ask for an apology (though others have, and with proper groudns, I think)

- And also, I need to understand some things first in order to accept that I am technically wrong about it.

You need to understand much before you make the claims you have been making yet you continue to make them. And the information to facilitate that understanding has been presented multiple times by people with the appropriate knowledge. You choose to ignore it or to intentionally misunderstand it.

For instance, how are control samples used in calibration?
--- Jabba

This, specifically, has been addressed.

You were wrong. It has been repeatedly demonstrated beyond doubt that you are wrong. You refuse to admit it. This is the same as lying.

Your argument and your position are jokes. My temper is short today, so my apologies for being blunt. There are a few possible explanations for your behavior in this thread in general and regarding this claim in particular; one of those explanations is charitable, but none of them are complimentary.

 

[Garrette]

I'm kind of wondering if argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well are still logical fallacies when you do them to yourself.

We are not retreating, Mr. President; we are advancing to the rear.

 

[Jabba]

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

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.
- IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.
- Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.
- IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.
- Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

Balderdash. You said it as you meant it and were unprepared for the challenge you met, and subsequently you have been unable to support it. Now you waffle desperately in order to avoid having to say you were wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.
- IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.
- Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

Is that an admission that you were wrong in your assumptions ? Can we now assume you accept the C14 dating results ?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.
- IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.
- Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

Rich:

An honest person will stand by the clear implication of his words. no matter how you try to pretty it up, you are, in fact, claiming that since you do not like the ¹⁴C date arrives at by three independent labs, your response is to imply that the people who did the tests must be incompetent, dishonest, or dupes of a vast conspiracy ("I'm nor sayin' it was the Illuminati, but it was..Look! Dan Brown!11elevendy11!").

The alternative are to accept that the ¹⁴C dates, arrived at in ways you are not competent to judge, are, in fact, valid; or, educate yourself in radiocarbon dating technology and protocols to the point that you can demonstrate precisely how all three labs went wrong.

Claiming that they are biased, because you are biased: therefore True Shroud^TM! is a dishonest approach.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm kind of wondering if argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well are still logical fallacies when you do them to yourself.

I think they become symptoms.

 

[wollery]

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.
- IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.
- Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

Except that, as has been pointed out and explained, clearly and repeatedly, the objective measurements used in 14C dating aren't affected by those biases.

There is absolutely nothing subjective involved in the process. Even the statistical treatment of the results is standardized.

The control samples are used to calibrate the results. Since the dates of the controls are know they can be used to create a plot of 14C ratio against date, and when you get the 14C ratio for the sample you can then plot it on the 14C axis of the graph and just read off the date from the other axis. There are error bars associated with the measurements and the graph, and these are reflected in the statistical confidence levels.

This is, of course, a simplified description of what actually happens, but in terms of the objectivity / subjectivity it's accurate. Nobody at any stage looks at the numbers and has to make a decision about whether or not to add a constant or alter a parameter. The data for the sample is treated in exactly the same way as the data for the controls.

I repeat; There is absolutely nothing subjective at any stage of the process.

 

[tsig]

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

You live in a magical world that others cannot see where you talk to invisible beings and have a book that foretells the future.

ETA: Do you worry about someone ensorcelling you? You know the more personal details you give out the easier it is for those practicing the Black Art to gain control of your soul so if I was you i'd not let too many things out on the internet because evil is always looking for an opening.

 

[Lucian]

Considering the length of this thread, I imagine this may have been mentioned before, but it's something that just popped into my brain:

Just for giggles, let's imagine that the scientists at three different labs DID have an anti-shroud bias, and let's imagine that somehow that bias could have affected results (perhaps they had some sort of psychic connection with their machines).* So, okay, through some sort of magic, this bias somehow skewed the dating.

Here's my question: why did this unconscious and magical bias result in such consistent results at three different labs? I mean, why didn't one of them come up with a ninth-century date? That would still have meant it couldn't have been Jesus's burial cloth. But no, the dates were all tightly bunched up between 1260 and 1390. How is that possible through unconscious bias?

*Obviously, none of this actually happened, of course.

 

[tsig]

• 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.

Why, I always kick some one in the shins just before I ask them to get me a glass of water. It works if you don't mind the water being applied externally.

 

[Belz...]

Considering the length of this thread, I imagine this may have been mentioned before, but it's something that just popped into my brain:

Just for giggles, let's imagine that the scientists at three different labs DID have an anti-shroud bias, and let's imagine that somehow that bias could have affected results (perhaps they had some sort of psychic connection with their machines).* So, okay, through some sort of magic, this bias somehow skewed the dating.

Here's my question: why did this unconscious and magical bias result in such consistent results at three different labs? I mean, why didn't one of them come up with a ninth-century date? That would still have meant it couldn't have been Jesus's burial cloth. But no, the dates were all tightly bunched up between 1260 and 1390. How is that possible through unconscious bias?

*Obviously, none of this actually happened, of course.

The only possible answer is conspiracy, something jabba has tapdanced around.

 

[pgwenthold]

The only possible answer is conspiracy, something jabba has tapdanced around.

I've pointed this out before. Despite his unwillingness to come out and directly say it, the ONLY way that his supposed objections could account for the error in the shroud is if there is a conspiracy somewhere.

For example, all the crap about who was or wasn't present when the pieces were cut. The only reason this is relevant is if he thinks that something untoward was going on. Because if everyone was on the up-and-up, then the chain of custody doesn't matter. CoC's are critical in the court of law to be able to rule out the possibility of evidence tampering. It is true that the same could be said of the shroud pieces, but then again, the same can be said - the problem with a proper lack of chain of custody (even if there were one) is that the evidence can be tampered with.

But if the evidence has been tampered with, then that means someone did it.

In the end, the only reason to be worried about who is present or not is because you think there is a conspiracy by someone.

It reminds me of Stewie Griffin, dancing around saying whether he wants to kill Lois or not. "I don't actually want to kill her, I just don't want her to be alive, and I want to be the one who does it."

 

[Olowkow]

For those who have not closely followed this thread, the 2005 article by Joe Nickell, whose work is well known to most skeptics, is a fairly good summary of the points raised by the JREF posters.

There are thousands of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class relics claimed by the Catholic church...wood from the cross, nails, blood from saints, etc. It should be emphasized that even the new pope has disavowed the "relic" status of the shroud of Turin. This simple fact never seems to sink in where devotees are concerned. Why not go visit a Holy Nail reliquary to get that religious buzz? First class relics, meaning they were actually touched by Jesus, so they say.

Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. He is author of numerous investigative books, including Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus Books, 1983, 1998) and Detecting Forgery (University Press of Kentucky, 1996).

The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims. The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

We all know that bishops don't lie. I wonder how long that artist lasted on the rack.

From Nickell's book, the letter to Pope Clement VII:

Source:

The bishop's text began: ''The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.''

In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260-1390, about the time of the reported forger's confession (ca. a.d. 1355).
Those who defend the shroud as authentic offer explanations for each damning piece of evidence, but these often veer toward pseudoscience and pseudohistory. For example, they offer various objections to the radiocarbon date, suggesting that it could have been altered by a fire in 1532, or by microbial contamination, or by imagined medieval repair in the sampled area--even by a burst of radiant energy from the Resurrection! However, none of these claims has merit. Clearly beginning with the desired answer, shroud enthusiasts work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and rationalizing to fit their belief--a process I call "shroud science."

 

[catsmate]

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

This really epitomises your attitude to rational discussion; you feel free to lie, distort and slander without feeling any necessity to apologise when you're caught.

As for the control samples, this has been discussed previously and was covered in the original Nature article. I'm sure you've read that.

Slowvehicle,
- I never did intend that implication in the way you mean it.

I do not believe you, based on your past behaviour here and elsewhere.

IMO, all of us humans are loaded down with "unworthy" (selfish, competitive, dishonest, etc) reflexes that subconsciously play a large role in directing our behavior.

The scientific method is designed to minimise the effects of personal bias.

Them is the horses we (whether bum or scientist) are ridin'. We’re all biased, and we’re all -- at least subconsciously -- affected by those biases.
--- Jabba

Utterly irrelevant to the science that shows that the shroud is a medieval fake.

Here's my question: why did this unconscious and magical bias result in such consistent results at three different labs? I mean, why didn't one of them come up with a ninth-century date? That would still have meant it couldn't have been Jesus's burial cloth. But no, the dates were all tightly bunched up between 1260 and 1390. How is that possible through unconscious bias?

Not to forget such consistent (and correct) dates for the three control samples.

 

[catsmate]

For those who have not closely followed this thread, the 2005 article by Joe Nickell, whose work is well known to most skeptics, is a fairly good summary of the points raised by the JREF posters.

That is a good starting place for the reality of the shroud

We all know that bishops don't lie. I wonder how long that artist lasted on the rack.

Ah the d'Arcis memorandum. Which shroudies, like JP, tray to ignore or deny.