Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Well, yes and no. It was supposed to be a pure count of affected basophils in different samples. It's an objective measure---a pure number, it's not like the subjective determination of which crystal is prettier. But it's subjective in that you have a person (and a pro-homeopathy person) doing the counting.

The pure numbers should be objective and self-evident, but you add the human factor and we (or I) see error at best and conspiracy at the worst.

Shroud believers see the same thing at work especially since they think that scientists are biased against them.

Ward

Ward,
- I hate to do this to you -- but, thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.

Nommed.

 

[Belz...]

- I suspect that you have info that I do not yet have (or, have not yet recognized)...

No kidding !

 

[Jabba]

Jabba - the problem with you talking about reasonable doubt is that it leads you inescapably to the accustaion of deliberate fraud. Here’s why -

- if you think there is reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the dates reported by the three radiocarbon labs, then you are left having to explain how all three labs could possibly report the same date range of circa. 1260-1390.

That would appear to leave only two possibilities in respect of your reasonable doubt -

- either (A) all three labs correctly measured the date to be in the range c.1260-1390AD. In which case your reasonable doubt was unfounded.

- or else (B) all three labs conspired to fraudulently report a dishonest date. In which case your reasonable doubt would be well founded.

Those appear to be the only two possibilities. Can you think of any other way that 3 different labs in the USA, Switzerland and England could all come up with the same entirely false date?

Either the date is truly what the labs measured, or else it is a fraud.

In other words, when you say you have a reasonable doubt like that, what it actually means is that you think it’s reasonable to say that “B” is true and the three labs conspired together to deliberately report a false date in order to claim that the shroud could not date from the time of Jesus.

Do you really think that is a reasonable doubt?

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba

 

[IanS]

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba

Jabba - here's the key question - how is it possible for three completely independent labs to all get the same date for the shroud?

 

[John Jones]

I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)

Oh give it a rest. How many times have you made this statement? You're starting to sound like a parrot.

 

[catsmate]

Plus, would have to have it done in a way that in turn will fool the British Museum Research Laboratory, which did the statistical analysis of the data. Or, that lab had to be in on it as well.

What Jabba fails to understand is that such an undertaking would not only risk one scientists reputation to be irreperably damaged if found out, but _all_ the involved scientists. That is, from the three dating labs plus the BMRL. Plus, of course, of those labs themselves for allowing such a big deception to occur in the first place.

Given the fact that this was a really high-profile case this is extremely unlikely. There were just too many eyes watching and observing, the outcome would in no way be enough to accept the risk.

This is a point, or rather a number of points, that Jabba and most shroudies probably don't comprehend.
1. There were a lot of people involved in the dating process, for the lunatic conspiracy theories to have any basis in reality many people would have to be involved.
2. Because of the number of people involved the participants would know it was impossible to tamper with results.
3. This is the kind of high profile analysis that has senior people watching; it's not just a couple of techs running the analysis and passing the data along. I have little doubt that senior staff were watching curiously and performing their own calculations on the raw data as soon as they had it.
This eliminates the idea of some kind of centralised fraud at the BM as the labs would know approximately what to expect.

Oh give it a rest. How many times have you made this statement? You're starting to sound like a parrot.

Indeed.

 

[jhunter1163]

Nommed.

Seconded.

 

[jond]

You don't have 'reasonable' doubt, Jabba. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to a clear process by which all three laboratories, including the two which blinded the samples at the final stage, could have made the same dating error. Reasonable doubt is where you can point to an actual flaw in the process of sampling, processing or reporting of results. Reasonable doubt is where the alternative theory is actually tenable without resorting to magic.

What you have is unreasonable doubt, fostered by your intense desire to have the shroud be the real burial cloth of Jesus. This unreasonable doubt is what drives the insinuations of unconscious bias having some kind of magical effect on objective machinery, a magical effect that even affects blind samples. Unreasonable doubt is where you ignore pieces of evidence which don't fit in with your preferred outcome. It's not scientific or rational, it's allowing your emotions to override your judgement. Laid out like that, can you see that your position is not one of reasonable doubt but of unreasonable doubt?

Nobody in this thread is trying to get you to abandon your faith (if you were to discuss your doubts about faith in another thread, that might be different). But faith in Jesus or God should not be affected by whether a piece of cloth is from the 1st or the 14th century, because nothing about the dating of the shroud has any bearing on whether Jesus existed or whether gods are real or imaginary. The evidence is what matters, and the evidence is that the shroud is from the 14th century.

The men of the Vatican don't allow the fact that the shroud is mediaeval to damage their faiths in their God, because rightly they understand that a piece of cloth doesn't have that power. Neither do most Christians because their faith is in Jesus and God, not a piece of cloth.

You've invested this piece of cloth with magical properties in the way it affects your faith. It's almost as if you have turned the shroud itself into a god. It isn't, it's just a piece of cloth which like hundreds of other religious objects has developed a raft of myths and superstitions around it. Just like all those fragments of the 'true cross' which, if put together would be enough to construct several hundred crosses and none of which came from an actual 1st century cross, let alone the actual cross on which Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I don't profess to fully understand the thinking which goes into the way you think about the shroud, but I would like you to consider this analogy about a hockey puck.

On my mantelpiece, I have an ice hockey puck which was used in a UK Challenge Cup final in 2002, being the last time the cup was won by the Sheffield Steelers (the team I support). I was at each leg of the final and have fantastic memories of the games.

If I one day discovered that the puck had been switched so that it's just an ordinary puck and not one used in that particular final, I wouldn't stop supporting the Sheffield Steelers, and I wouldn't feel that their victory had been tainted. I'd probably still keep the puck on the mantelpiece, because it's a reminder of the game, it's not the game itself or a substitute for my support for the team.

Just like that hockey puck, the only thing the shroud should be is a reminder of your faith just as any religiously-inspired painting, statue, piece of architecture or even piece of music. It can be that reminder of your faith no matter when it was produced, because it isn't the faith itself.

Quoted because Jabba needs to read it and respond. Unfortunately, I predict that he will ignore it.

 

[Mashuna]

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)
3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.
4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,
5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba

None of which are reasons for reasonable doubt.

 

[TjW]

Explain something to me, Jabba.
Two of the laboratories blinded the testing between the preparation and the measurement.
Let us assume, for the purposes of this post, that you are the scientists doing the measurement or calculation from the measurement. Alas, in this post you are an evil shroud denier, driven to show that the shroud is a 14th century artifact regardless of the Truth.

You're handed three samples of black dust, labeled with numbers. Call them 1, 2, 3.
You know that these are the shroud sample, a 14th century control, and a 1st century control, but not which is which. You only have the identifying numbers.
After measurement, you conclude that 1 and 2 date to the first century, while sample 3 dates to the 14th century.

Your problem is this: which of the two first century measurements do you lie about, claiming that it dates to the 14th century? If the one you lie about is the Shroud measurement, then your evil work here is done, and your lie is successful. If you lie about the first century control, though, then your lie will be found out, because other people know that that sample didn't come from Shroud.

For you to have a reasonable doubt, you must now answer the question of how an evil shroud denier solves this problem. Twice. And why assuming there are two evil Shroud deniers is a reasonable assumption.

You could just guess, but your chance of success with this method is 50/50. Since there are two independent people facing this problem, your odds of success are .5 x .5 = .25, or only 1 chance in 4. Also, you don't know if either of the other two labs blinded the controls, or whether they will lie about the results.

Now, if your assumptions are that all three laboratories colluded on a lie, then I don't think that falls under "reasonable doubt". That's squarely in the "Conspiracy Theory" camp, and you should admit it.

 

[Dinwar]

1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .

Demonstrably false, and since we've explained why it's false including references this is a lie to boot.

2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)

In a year and over 150 pages you've yet to provide a single argument in favor of this fantasy that withstands even the most casual of analysis.

3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.

Upon what do you base this accusation of fraud? You're demonstrably unfamiliar with standard sampling methods, after all.

4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias.

Translation: "I have no idea what any of this means, but since it disagrees with me I'm going to assume that someone committed fraud." Not just that, but every scientist who read it--which includes folks who are predisposed towards religions, including Catholicism/Christianity--would have to miss basic math errors. So this is an accusation of fraud and of conspiracy.

5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

This, despite our careful explanations for why blinding is irrelevant to carbon dating and the fact that blinding was actually done.

I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.

You've been researching this topics for a decade, and have had over a year to find the references. You can't. Just admit it.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba - here's the key question - how is it possible for three completely independent labs to all get the same date for the shroud?

Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,

- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head.
- As pointed out,
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .

You have no basis for this accusation of professional dishonesty, collusion, or outright fraud.

2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.)

There is no physical evidence to serve as a foundation for this suspicion; worse, you have been presented with a raft of physical evidence to the contrary, even evidence from STURP.

3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias.

You have no basis for this blanket accusation of dishonesty.

4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally,

What "accusations" about the statistics? You have no basis to continue to claim that three independent labs would be venal enough, dishonest enough, careless enough, or inclose enough collusion, to make the same mistakes in the same direction and reach the same erroneous results.

5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions.

--- Jabba

It seems that you mean that you have not yet invented a convincing way that all three albs could have gotten away with lying about the results of the ¹⁴C dates.

You have ignored the explanations you have been offered about why blinding is not a part of ¹⁴C dating.

You have ignored the fact that, to avoid silly charges such as yours, two of the labs did, in fact, run blinded samples (why have you not addressed the fact that those two results were consonant with the other, unblinded result?).

You are perfectly happy to accuse a multitude of researches, writers and technicians of dishonesty, venality, fraud, incompetence, stupidity, and collusion...and the only reason you have for doing so is that you do not "like" the medieval date.

This has gone beyond sad...

ETA: substantially ninja'd by TjW and Dinwar, but I'm letting it stand...

 

[Acleron]

...
1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity .
...

Jabba, they were not testing authenticity, they were assaying the date. The shroud could have been dated to 30AD and it still wouldn't prove that some guy called Jesus had ever been near it.

But the implication of your statement is that the scientists would have co-operated from three different countries to falsify the results. It is quite ridiculous that all of these scientists and their lab technicians colluded and nobody has admitted it happened.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.

After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud.
- If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference.
- I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias.
--- jabba

OK, well that sounds like a direct admission that bias cannot be an explanation for the C14 dates.

What you say above is going right back to your earlier argument saying the sample must have been a patch of some kind (dating from circa. 1260-1390AD).

Though in a previous recent post I thought you had agreed that the patch idea cannot be right?

Are we ditching the idea of bias leading all three labs to the same wrong date, and going back now to the idea of a patch again?

 

[Jabba]

After the labs got the samples, they cut them up into smaller pieces, and cleaned each of those pieces in a different way. Are you saying that all 12 cleaning methods were inadequate?

Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Squeegee,
- I think that I am. Even Gove accepted that there was some sort of bio-plastic coating on the linen threads -- even after all the cleaning.
- I'm in a rush right now, but if you want, I'll provide a citation as soon as I get back.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Dating/bioplasticfailure.html

 

[John Jones]

Quoted because Jabba needs to read it and respond. Unfortunately, I predict that he will ignore it.

He'll get back to us - when he has time. Look at all the demands on his time. A sick relative. Shopping. Working. Sleeping. Thinking. Researching his claims.

No. He'll get back to us. He's told us he would.