RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
It keeps coming back to incompetence, collusion, or dishonesty, and to support your accusations you still have no more than labs got the "wrong" 14C date...
Not to mention that you have demonstrated that you are not competent to judge whether a test was "careful enough"...in any way.
Forgive me for saying so, but finding this evidence is like finding the floor by dropping a beignet..
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Jabba, do you recall off-hand the size of the samples that arrived at the labs for testing?
Do you remember who supervised the taking of the samples?
Are you saying there was a flaw in the chain of custody?
Bookmarked!
Out of curiosity, Jabba, do you bookmark the most relevant posts and sites you read?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Mighty One (may you post forever!):
Not to derail, or anything, but the new 'var is impressive. Is this the start of a season?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
...did you bring enough for everybody, or are you just teasing me?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I'll provide that evidence as soon as I get time. I have to make water, cook dinner, talk on the phone, do laundry, take a nap, sweep the kitchen, try to remember the name of my first endocrinologist, and a thousand other things more important than providing supporting evidence for the 10th time!!!
But after all that's done, and after I've clipped my nails, shaved, polished some furniture, made some scurrilous, idiotic slander against scientists again and again, then I'll get right on it.
As soon as I find the time.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,042
Personally if the subject and content of a thread interest me, I paste the useful bits into an RTF doc and save it; I've accumulated a few on subjects ranging from Hiter and Religion, the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, male circumcision, the mysterious disappearances at Flannan, the Lindy Chamberlain case, the lack of relation between induced abortion and breast cancer, the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus et cetera.
I follow any links and paste in stuff from the web (or papers) so I have it in one convenient place, available offline, that doesn't rely on websites staying static.
Oh and I recommend Jarte; it's free and portable with spell checking and auto-save.
Please don't. I'm trying to be good.
Anyway I'm off to feed the slaves their evening oatmeal.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Hey, Jarte rules!
Like the loaves and the fishes, there are beignets for all.
Just concentrate on the photo, and unless you've sneezed the wrong way in the last 30 days, you'll have alll the beignets you desire.
Like the loaves and the fishes, there are beignets for all.
Just concentrate on the photo, and unless you've sneezed the wrong way in the last 30 days, you'll have alll the beignets you desire.
Last edited:
I did not know that anyone except the C14 labs had that same strip of cloth to test?
Who else was given that same piece of the shroud to test?
How are you getting on with finding an answer to the key question?
Q1 - How could three independent labs in different parts of the world all arrive at the same wrong date?
I think you need to answer that first, before we go off down other routes such as whether there was a patch etc.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
A running bet with my mate, Sideroxylon.
He won this week, but I'll get him . . . and his little bird.
The ones that would exist if Jabba's hypothesis was correct. Jabba is once again starting with his conclusion and ignoring evidence which doesn't fit. Because he does this, he seems to think that that is how all scientists work. As we keep telling him, science doesn't work like that - any 'clue' that was observed would be part of the evidence, the conclusion isn't formed until after the evidence (ALL of it) has been tabulated. Everyone in the thread has pointed this out ad nauseam, but Jabba is not listening.
If anything, that provides an additional layer of assurance that there were no amazing visible invisible patches, as yet another set of people have observed the samples and noted their observations. You need to understand, Jabba, that the scientists were observing and collecting evidence, not forming a hypothesis. That was done later at the BMRI, after all the evidence was gathered, including the results of the carbon dating processes (two of which, we remind you once again, were done blind at the final stage).
You really are clutching at straws with this patching idea, and the only way such a patch could be worked into your theory (as well as the shroud) is by using techniques which defy naturalistic explanations, or by accusing people with vested interests in dating the shroud to the 1st century of fraud during the chain of custody.
You are positing a patch which is invisible to the naked eye, which matches the weave of the shroud and the invisible linen banding so precisely that not even the most powerful microscopes can detect any irregularity in the weave or banding. Further, you are positing that this patch was put onto the shroud in an area well away from the image by people who failed to record their work on the shroud at all, despite the presence on the shroud of huge and very obvious patches, and despite these amazingly talented people having absolutely no idea which part of the shroud would be sampled, hundreds of years later.
Time for you to explain your theory, Jabba. Here are some questions for you to answer:
1. When did this patching of the shroud occur?
2. Who did the work?
3. How did they do it (remember, the weave and the invisible linen banding shows no sign of patching in that area)?
4. Why did they do it?
5. Why was it not documented?
6. Why did they choose that area?
7. Did they know when, where and how much of the shroud would be sampled for radiocarbon dating purposes?
8. Why, if technology that allows truly invisible patches to be applied to fabric which match both the weave and the linen banding, was this technology not used for the other very obvious patches on the shroud?
Off you go. No invoking of magic, or anything illogical. Unless you can produce a tenable theory which accounts for all of that, including the chain of custody, you are wasting everyone's time and the site's bandwith with your patching idea.
No doubt you'll 'come back to this later' or ignore it, but consider the message you are sending to everybody of the paucity of your argument if you simply avoid the hard questions.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Please explain what signs you're talking about.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,042
I *think*, though it's difficult to tell with Jabba's usual vagueness, that he's referring to the earlier round of testing; the area sampled for radiocarbon dating was part of the same section of the cloth and adjacent to the part removed in 1973.
Exactly. The textile examination was carried out by experts in that field (Raes, Flury-Lemberg, Testore and Vial for example) and the dating carried out by experts in that field (Donahue, Hatheway, Linick, Sercel, Bronk, Hall, Hedges, Bonani, Ambers and Woelfli amongst others)
Not so much for Jabba' sake, because he has other more direct questions to answer first, but just as a general comment on this point about the C14 scientists stating that there was no evidence of any patch or repair -
- the C14 sample was only cut after 10 years of meetings in Turin where the church authorities sat around a big table with the C14 science representatives, members of STuRP, and various other people, deciding how, when, why and where any sample of the shroud would be removed for C14 dating.
As Goves' books makes clear with chapter after chapter of his verbatim notes taken by himself and his secretary during all those meetings, there was frequent discussion of how to ensure that any sample which was cut would be taken well away from areas that were known to be patched (the patches are huge), burnt or otherwise less than ideal. All the C14 labs had representatives at those meetings.
When the sample was finally cut, it had already been agreed to take the sample from close to the area where the Raes sample had been cut in 1973. However, the church officials and STuRP members present still insisted on examining that precise small region of the shroud for two hours before finally taking a few seconds to snip off a few centimetres from that the edge of the shroud. That two hour discussion was substantially about making absolutely sure to the satisfaction of everyone present that there was definitely no sign of any patch, repair, fire damage, or other untoward features on that small strip of the shroud.
When the C14 labs each received their piece of that cut sample, they all examined their pieces under lab microscopes. In Goves book, which Jabba has, there is actually a picture (not very well printed) of one of the photos that the Swiss lab took of their sample.
As Gove made clear, it was immediately obvious to all three labs that the shroud sample had a unique and easily identified weave, which could not be confused with any other cloth (inc. any signs of a repair, as viewed under lab microscopes). Indeed, also in Goves book, it's made clear that during the ten years of meetings, Flury Lemberg as well as Gove and the other C14 scientists, made clear that Walter McCrone's suggestion of a need for blind testing of the samples, was both scientifically unnecessary in the case of a technique like C14, and was in any case practically impossible since the weave of the shroud was unique and instantly identifiable.
OK, so just to be clear - the C14 lab representatives were party to all the above discussions and were witnesses to the procedure of cutting the sample well away from any "patch".
When the paper was published in Nature it was of course a joint publication with all three labs named on the paper, and as others have already pointed out, the paper specifically says that the procedure of selecting and then removing the sample, included agreement from everyone involved that it was cut from a region well away from any areas of repairs, patches or other damage etc.
So that is the answer to Jabba's question.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Well Said!
He may well be thinking of that. I don’t think that idea will fly though. Because that Raes sample was of course not the exact same piece cut for the C14. The C14 was taken from the area adjacent to where the Raes sample had been cut in 1973. Point being ... any patch covering the Raes sample would also need to extend over the entire strip later cut for C14 ... otherwise all 3 labs could not have got effectively the same date for their samples.
That whole area would need to be one continuous "patch". But in that case everyone would have been able to spot it immediately. Yet it's never been visible to anyone, and on the contrary the C14 sample had the same unique weave of the shroud throughout.
Last edited:
- Status