Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[IanS]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

But since all three labs measured effectively the same date, that would mean the entire strip that was cut for C14 by Riggi, that all had to be one and the same large patch?

And I thought you had agreed earlier that it could not have been such a large patch, otherwise everyone would have noticed it?

 

[IanS]

edit ... double post.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.

What's the hold-up?

Haven't made anything up yet?

Perhaps you could try changing your best guess to "Penguins!"

Everybody likes penguins.

 

[Dinwar]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

They had a whole postage-stamp sized piece? That's a tad overkill, to be honest. I've sent much smaller amounts of organic carbon (charcoal) to be dated and gotten very good results. The only reason I tend to over-sample thermoluminescence samples is that frankly I have coffee cans lying around; even there we're talking a few ounces for sediment samples, and a single stone flake for tool samples.

The highlighted word is where you jump head-first into dishonesty again. It's been a year and you've yet to provide ANY information to support this notion. If you could have, you would have. This is, as I have pointed out to you before, a scientific debate. In science, we are not allowed to use the word "somehow" in this manner. If there are multiple, well-supported options, such as for abiogenesis, sure--it merely means that of the valid options we can't distinguish which is true. But you're using it in an attempt to evade the responsibility of supporting your hypothesis, in a despirate attempt to bolster your arguments in the face of your complete lack of evidence.

 

[Mashuna]

What's the hold-up?

Haven't made anything up yet?

Perhaps you could try changing your best guess to "Penguins!"

Everybody likes penguins.

I'd find penguins more convincing. And funnier!

 

[Garrette]

It bears repeating what others have said previously numerous times:

If the C14 date had come back as 1st century, Jabba would be the one standing in front of the Shroudies shouting loudly how it proves divinity. Further, he would be denouncing as closed-minded anyone who did not accept the scientific evidence.

'tis buffoonery

 

[catsmate]

But since all three labs measured effectively the same date, that would mean the entire strip that was cut for C14 by Riggi, that all had to be one and the same large patch?

And I thought you had agreed earlier that it could not have been such a large patch, otherwise everyone would have noticed it?

And given that this was the most studied and photographed section of the shroud.

They had a whole postage-stamp sized piece? That's a tad overkill, to be honest. I've sent much smaller amounts of organic carbon (charcoal) to be dated and gotten very good results. The only reason I tend to over-sample thermoluminescence samples is that frankly I have coffee cans lying around; even there we're talking a few ounces for sediment samples, and a single stone flake for tool samples.

The section cut was ~7cm², each lab got ~50mg which they sub-divided further.

I'd find penguins more convincing. And funnier!

Penguins are indeed funny animals.

 

[abaddon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFKJjKA2lB0
nuff said

 

[tsig]

Ian,
- My best guess is that they did not measure the wrong date -- not for the (postage stamp of a) sample that they were testing. Somehow, the sample was just not representative of the greater shroud. I'll get to my alleged evidence for that belief as soon as possible.
--- Jabba

God transubstantiatiated the sample so it"s accidents looked like shroud cloth but it's essence wasn't. He had to do this or there would be absolute proof of the resurrection thereby negating the need for faith.


Blessed is he who has not seen and believed. Why do you wish to throw away your blessing?

 

[tsig]

Intuited it? A whole pack of laughing dogs wouldn't be enough to convey the ridiculousness of that.

Isn't that what all speakers for god do?

It's the burning in the bosom, the ineffable experience, the inner light or the awe induced by a frozen waterfall that guides the truth for most religious types, any appearance of logic produced is merely their rationalizations to cover their beliefs.

 

[tsig]

I'd find penguins more convincing. And funnier!

It bears repeating what others have said previously numerous times:

If the C14 date had come back as 1st century, Jabba would be the one standing in front of the Shroudies shouting loudly how it proves divinity. Further, he would be denouncing as closed-minded anyone who did not accept the scientific evidence.

'tis buffoonery

It's penguins!

https://www.google.com/search?q=pen...ACsmh2gWJ1oGwCw&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=658

 

[tsig]

IMHO, I think it is an apt phrase in Jabba's case. He claims to have it, but nobody has ever seen it, and he can't find it.

A clear case of cogitatus interruptus.

 

[Jabba]

But since all three labs measured effectively the same date, that would mean the entire strip that was cut for C14 by Riggi, that all had to be one and the same large patch?
And I thought you had agreed earlier that it could not have been such a large patch, otherwise everyone would have noticed it?

Ian,
- In my opinion, a large patch is still one of the more likely possibilities. Here's my explanation from 4993.

- Originally Posted by wardenclyffe
And the proper way to answer that answer is, "If Thibault could 'see' different types of fiber, then how could the patch possibly be invisible?"...

- My response
Ward,
- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."
- The one answer I got on the Porter blog actually alluded to the possibility I had alluded to previously. As I recall, neither those doing the dating nor those preparing for the dating, claimed to do the examinations (that Rogers, Raes, Brown and the Los Alamos National Laboratory did on the Shroud, or the sticky tapes) that turned up the evidence for patching. Also, Flury-Lemburg apparently didn't know about "reversing," and might have prematurely discounted the patch possibility due to there being no obvious evidence on the back of the Shroud.
- In other words, there appears to have been some patching going on that those really involved in the dating process didn't see because they didn't use the examination techniques necessary to see it.
- Does that make significant sense?


- Later on, in 5265, I said, While I do think that there was something "different" done to that area of the Shroud, I'm much less convinced (than I had been previously) that an actual "patch" of some size was involved.

- Now, I've probably "retreated" a little back in favor of the patch of some size...
- Sorry for my fickleness -- but, there it is...

--- Jabba














Ian,
- Two
1)

--- Jabba

 

[Dinwar]

So you're going to ignore nearly 2,000 posts, many of which include data on this topic.

Well, at least you're (tangentially) admitting it.

 

[Akri]

- In my opinion, a large patch is still one of the more likely possibilities.

No offense, but you're too ignorant of the subject matter for your opinion to be worth anything.

- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."
- The one answer I got on the Porter blog actually alluded to the possibility I had alluded to previously. As I recall, neither those doing the dating nor those preparing for the dating, claimed to do the examinations (that Rogers, Raes, Brown and the Los Alamos National Laboratory did on the Shroud, or the sticky tapes) that turned up the evidence for patching. Also, Flury-Lemburg apparently didn't know about "reversing," and might have prematurely discounted the patch possibility due to there being no obvious evidence on the back of the Shroud.
- In other words, there appears to have been some patching going on that those really involved in the dating process didn't see because they didn't use the examination techniques necessary to see it.

This again?

Why do you reject the opinions of people who actually worked with the Shroud, but you unquestioningly accept the word of someone who claims (without providing proof) to have been working with fibers from the Shroud? Why do you think that the bias of the scientists (which you can't even demonstrate they had) could have affected the testing, but Rogers' known belief in and desire to validate the Shroud doesn't make you question his results?

 

[carlitos]

Ian,
- Two
1)

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

<nonsense>

- Now, I've probably "retreated" a little back in favor of the patch of some size...

No, you haven't.

You've simply decided to ignore the evidence and pretend that the truth is whatever you want it to be.

- Sorry for my fickleness -- but, there it is...

Meh.

It's long past the time when you had anything to add to the discussion anyway.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'll just quote Tim Minchin:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

Jabba, you're falling with a meaty sounding thunk right into the second catagory. Can you not see that?

 

[Belz...]

- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."

We know. It depends on your wishful thinking.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- In my opinion, a large patch is still one of the more likely possibilities. Here's my explanation from 4993.

- Originally Posted by wardenclyffe
And the proper way to answer that answer is, "If Thibault could 'see' different types of fiber, then how could the patch possibly be invisible?"...

- My response
Ward,
- At this point, my reluctance to fully accept that there was no patch involved does not depend upon the patch being "invisible."
- The one answer I got on the Porter blog actually alluded to the possibility I had alluded to previously.

Rich: it makes me sad for you that the problem here does not scream out at you; does not keep you awake at night; does not drag you kicking and screaming into thinking...

Why are your "allusions" more puissant to you than the clear, unambiguous, repeated statements to the people who have examined the cloth?

(I know the answer to this--do you?)

As I recall, neither those doing the dating nor those preparing for the dating, claimed to do the examinations (that Rogers, Raes, Brown and the Los Alamos National Laboratory did on the Shroud, or the sticky tapes) that turned up the evidence for patching.

It makes me sad for you that unambiguous group examination of the actual cloth, and of pieces of fabric with clear chains of custody back to the cloth, are less convincing to you than legends spun upon ambiguous threads with no actual provenance, no chain of custody, and no record of how they have been handled and stored...

(I know why this is--do you?)

Also, Flury-Lemburg apparently didn't know about "reversing," and might have prematurely discounted the patch possibility due to there being no obvious evidence on the back of the Shroud.

Are you actually claiming that Mmme. F-L was not competent to notice a patch on the actual cloth? Yet Rogers, in his kitchen, with strands of dubious history peeled off of adhesive tape, was competent to declare the presence of a "patch" or "some patching", which no one who has actually handled the cloth has seen, or been able to detect?

(I know why this is--do you?)

In other words, there appears to have been some patching going on that those really involved in the dating process didn't see because they didn't use the examination techniques necessary to see it.
- Does that make significant sense?
[/I]

No, Rich, it does not make sense. It requires the belief that Mme F-L et al. were either incompetent, dishonest, or in collusion.

- Later on, in 5265, I said, While I do think that there was something "different" done to that area of the Shroud, I'm much less convinced (than I had been previously) that an actual "patch" of some size was involved.

- Now, I've probably "retreated" a little back in favor of the patch of some size...
- Sorry for my fickleness -- but, there it is...

--- Jabba

What evidence do you offer, have you ever offered, for the highlighted, above?

Why not simply make your accusations and hae' done wi' it?

(I know the answer--do you?)