Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Christian Klippel]

Sure beats actually doing something, right ?

One could easily think that by now he is well aware that all his "objections" are meaningless, i.e. that there is no evidence for them at all, and thus he need to divert attention to some meaningless babble about how people should debate things.

Jabba, newsflash for you: you are in absolutely no position to tell anyone here how to dicuss and debate things. You utterly lack the power to tell people what to do and how.

Cough up some solid evidence. In hundreds of posts you claimed that you will get to it and present it. But so far you failed to do so. There is simply no point in trying to change reality to fit your predetermined conclusions. Never was, never will.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Jabba]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.
- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

1. Pro-authenticity
1.1. Never explained or reproduced
1.1.1. Have reproduced
1.1.1.1. Garlaschelli, Luigi
1.1.1.1.1. Not 3D
1.1.1.2 (Etc.)
1.2. Blood
1.2.1. Real
1.2.2. Human
1.2.3. Not painted – some sort of imprint
1.2.3.1. Serum clot retraction rings
1.2.4. DNA
1.3. Sudarium
1.4. Etc.


2. Anti-authenticity
2.1. Carbon dating resolves the issue. In 1988, carbon dating concluded that the shroud was created in, or around, the 14th century. The entire process was carefully planned and carried out by experts in the field.
- Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
- R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527. [Ian]
2.1.1. Three different labs
2.1.1.1. Protocols called for 7 different labs, using 2 different C14 methods.
2.1.2. All got same answers
2.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
2.1.2.1.1. Patch?
2.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
2.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
2.1.2.1.4. Something else?
2.1.2.2. Then, could be that whole shroud was affected by something.
2.1.2.3. Statistics could be an issue.
2.1.3. Carbon dating is OBJECTIVE process.
2.1.3.1. Not entirely, and “blindness” not effective in this case.
2.1.3.1.1. But was effective in 2 out of the 3 labs. And,
2.1.3.1.2. Blindness, here, isn’t necessary anyway. No room for bias in the measurements.
2.1.3.2. But, lot of room for bias in the DEVELOPMENT process.
2.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
2.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.
2.1.5. Nature is prestigious source.
2.1.6. No issue here unless can show significant issues with the process itself.
2.1.6.1. Think there are several issues with the development process.
2.1.6.1.1. Emotionality in process
2.1.6.1.2. Abandoned protocols
2.1.6.1.3. Statistics
2.1.6.1.4. Patch
2.1.6.1.4.1. Experts say no patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1. Is SOME patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.1. Rogers
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.2. Brown
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.3. Los Alamos
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.4. Raes
2.1.6.1.4.2. Can’t be actually invisible
2.1.6.1.5. Etc.
2.1.7. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2.1.7.1. Patch
2.1.7.1.1. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
2.1.7.1.1.1. Almost invisible
2.1.7.1.1.2. Bias
2.1.7.1.1.2.1. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
2.1.7.1.1.3. Looking for wrong signs
2.1.7.1.1.4. Didn’t do necessary testing
2.1.7.1.2. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.3. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.4. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.5. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.6. Patch area was very carefully selected [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.7. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already? [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.8. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.9. Consistent banding through the C14 sample areaConsistent C14 results throughout the sample area [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.10. Ad-hoc nature of the invisible patch theory [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.11. Patch can’t be invisible.
2.1.7.2. Contaminated water
2.1.7.3. Contamination otherwise
2.1.7.4. Scorch
2.1.7.5. Irradiation
2.1.7.6. CO2
2.2. Other problems with shroud
2.2.1. Hands
2.2.2. Arms
2.2.3. Top of head
2.2.4. Blood on hair not right
2.2.5. Blood too realistic
2.2.6. Fits documented evidence as to history
2.2.7. Fits McCrone’s findings
2.2.8. Fits D’arci’s Memo
2.2.9.(Etc.)

--- Jabba

 

[SezMe]

- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

1. Pro-authenticity
1.1. Never explained or reproduced
1.1.1. Have reproduced
1.1.1.1. Garlaschelli, Luigi
1.1.1.1.1. Not 3D
1.1.1.2 (Etc.)
1.2. Blood
1.2.1. Real
1.2.2. Human
1.2.3. Not painted – some sort of imprint
1.2.3.1. Serum clot retraction rings
1.2.4. DNA
1.3. Sudarium
1.4. Etc.


2. Anti-authenticity
2.1. Carbon dating resolves the issue. In 1988, carbon dating concluded that the shroud was created in, or around, the 14th century. The entire process was carefully planned and carried out by experts in the field.
- Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
- R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527. [Ian]
2.1.1. Three different labs
2.1.1.1. Protocols called for 7 different labs, using 2 different C14 methods.
2.1.2. All got same answers
2.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
2.1.2.1.1. Patch?
2.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
2.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
2.1.2.1.4. Something else?
2.1.2.2. Then, could be that whole shroud was affected by something.
2.1.2.3. Statistics could be an issue.
2.1.3. Carbon dating is OBJECTIVE process.
2.1.3.1. Not entirely, and “blindness” not effective in this case.
2.1.3.1.1. But was effective in 2 out of the 3 labs. And,
2.1.3.1.2. Blindness, here, isn’t necessary anyway. No room for bias in the measurements.
2.1.3.2. But, lot of room for bias in the DEVELOPMENT process.
2.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
2.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.
2.1.5. Nature is prestigious source.
2.1.6. No issue here unless can show significant issues with the process itself.
2.1.6.1. Think there are several issues with the development process.
2.1.6.1.1. Emotionality in process
2.1.6.1.2. Abandoned protocols
2.1.6.1.3. Statistics
2.1.6.1.4. Patch
2.1.6.1.4.1. Experts say no patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1. Is SOME patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.1. Rogers
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.2. Brown
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.3. Los Alamos
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.4. Raes
2.1.6.1.4.2. Can’t be actually invisible
2.1.6.1.5. Etc.
2.1.7. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2.1.7.1. Patch
2.1.7.1.1. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
2.1.7.1.1.1. Almost invisible
2.1.7.1.1.2. Bias
2.1.7.1.1.2.1. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
2.1.7.1.1.3. Looking for wrong signs
2.1.7.1.1.4. Didn’t do necessary testing
2.1.7.1.2. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.3. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.4. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.5. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.6. Patch area was very carefully selected [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.7. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already? [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.8. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.9. Consistent banding through the C14 sample areaConsistent C14 results throughout the sample area [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.10. Ad-hoc nature of the invisible patch theory [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.11. Patch can’t be invisible.
2.1.7.2. Contaminated water
2.1.7.3. Contamination otherwise
2.1.7.4. Scorch
2.1.7.5. Irradiation
2.1.7.6. CO2
2.2. Other problems with shroud
2.2.1. Hands
2.2.2. Arms
2.2.3. Top of head
2.2.4. Blood on hair not right
2.2.5. Blood too realistic
2.2.6. Fits documented evidence as to history
2.2.7. Fits McCrone’s findings
2.2.8. Fits D’arci’s Memo
2.2.9.(Etc.)

Here's a better "map"
1.0 C14

 

[Belz...]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed.

Yeah, nobody cares. Admit you have NO valid objection to the C14 dating, and this thread will be over.

 

[Garrette]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.
- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

--snip--

--- Jabba

This is ridiculous from the outside looking in for all the reasons that have been well and often articulated about how this is not how effective debate or effective science is done.

More tellingly, it is ridiculous from the inside looking out because Jabba has not excluded any single point at all regardless how well and often it has been refuted.

A more clear example of intentional obliviousness to reality would be harder to find.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is ridiculous from the outside looking in for all the reasons that have been well and often articulated about how this is not how effective debate or effective science is done.

More tellingly, it is ridiculous from the inside looking out because Jabba has not excluded any single point at all regardless how well and often it has been refuted.

A more clear example of intentional obliviousness to reality would be harder to find.

It's almost like he's angling for a Luke 18:1-7...

 

[Akri]

-Snip

Jabba, your "map" is complete gibberish to me. I can't make heads or tails of the darn thing.

Please, stop worrying about all this outlining and just present your evidence that the C14 dating is faulty. That is the only thing capable of moving the conversation forward.

 

[Dinwar]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.

Whether we like it or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The "map" is off-topic and serves only as a distraction to help you avoid the fact that after a year, you've still presented no credible evidence.

- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

Does someone need to start reporting your posts as off-topic before you understand that this is completely irrelevant to this conversation? Thus far we've been fairly generous, but if you're going to continue to attempt to dictate the terms of the debate to us I'm seriously tempted to start just to get the point across.

Post actual data, or admit you can't. Anything else is a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.
- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

1. Pro-authenticity
1.1. Never explained or reproduced
1.1.1. Have reproduced
1.1.1.1. Garlaschelli, Luigi
1.1.1.1.1. Not 3D
1.1.1.2 (Etc.)
1.2. Blood
1.2.1. Real
1.2.2. Human
1.2.3. Not painted – some sort of imprint
1.2.3.1. Serum clot retraction rings
1.2.4. DNA
1.3. Sudarium
1.4. Etc.


2. Anti-authenticity
2.1. Carbon dating resolves the issue. In 1988, carbon dating concluded that the shroud was created in, or around, the 14th century. The entire process was carefully planned and carried out by experts in the field.
- Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 (http://shroud.com/nature.htm)
- R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521-1527. [Ian]
2.1.1. Three different labs
2.1.1.1. Protocols called for 7 different labs, using 2 different C14 methods.
2.1.2. All got same answers
2.1.2.1. Most likely got correct answer for that sample, just that sample was not representative of greater shroud.
2.1.2.1.1. Patch?
2.1.2.1.2. Contamination by handling?
2.1.2.1.3. Contaminated fire-fighting water?
2.1.2.1.4. Something else?
2.1.2.2. Then, could be that whole shroud was affected by something.
2.1.2.3. Statistics could be an issue.
2.1.3. Carbon dating is OBJECTIVE process.
2.1.3.1. Not entirely, and “blindness” not effective in this case.
2.1.3.1.1. But was effective in 2 out of the 3 labs. And,
2.1.3.1.2. Blindness, here, isn’t necessary anyway. No room for bias in the measurements.
2.1.3.2. But, lot of room for bias in the DEVELOPMENT process.
2.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
2.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.
2.1.5. Nature is prestigious source.
2.1.6. No issue here unless can show significant issues with the process itself.
2.1.6.1. Think there are several issues with the development process.
2.1.6.1.1. Emotionality in process
2.1.6.1.2. Abandoned protocols
2.1.6.1.3. Statistics
2.1.6.1.4. Patch
2.1.6.1.4.1. Experts say no patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1. Is SOME patching
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.1. Rogers
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.2. Brown
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.3. Los Alamos
2.1.6.1.4.1.1.4. Raes
2.1.6.1.4.2. Can’t be actually invisible
2.1.6.1.5. Etc.
2.1.7. How could all three labs get the same wrong answer?
2.1.7.1. Patch
2.1.7.1.1. How could so many experts – examining the sample area for patching -- miss a patch large enough to affect the dating by 1300 years?
2.1.7.1.1.1. Almost invisible
2.1.7.1.1.2. Bias
2.1.7.1.1.2.1. Carbon dating, being such an objective process, how could bias affect the results?
2.1.7.1.1.3. Looking for wrong signs
2.1.7.1.1.4. Didn’t do necessary testing
2.1.7.1.2. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.3. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.4. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.5. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.6. Patch area was very carefully selected [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.7. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already? [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.8. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.9. Consistent banding through the C14 sample areaConsistent C14 results throughout the sample area [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.10. Ad-hoc nature of the invisible patch theory [davefoc]
2.1.7.1.11. Patch can’t be invisible.
2.1.7.2. Contaminated water
2.1.7.3. Contamination otherwise
2.1.7.4. Scorch
2.1.7.5. Irradiation
2.1.7.6. CO2
2.2. Other problems with shroud
2.2.1. Hands
2.2.2. Arms
2.2.3. Top of head
2.2.4. Blood on hair not right
2.2.5. Blood too realistic
2.2.6. Fits documented evidence as to history
2.2.7. Fits McCrone’s findings
2.2.8. Fits D’arci’s Memo
2.2.9.(Etc.)

--- Jabba

Evasion noted

 

[kerikiwi]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include,

Let me guess: the evidence that the dating is wrong.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Jabba, all your "map" does is to show you have no ability to learn anything about reality and your ability to distort anything to fit your a priori believe.

 

[IanS]

Jabba, your "map" is complete gibberish to me. I can't make heads or tails of the darn thing.

Please, stop worrying about all this outlining and just present your evidence that the C14 dating is faulty. That is the only thing capable of moving the conversation forward.

Jabba - please look at Akri's post above, and act on that.

Don't do anything else. Just note that we have been asking you for what is now more that a whole year and well over 100 posts, to post any real independent papers claiming the C14 dates are in error ...

... the problem is that after all the last 150+ pages you apparently do not have even one such real scientific paper criticising the C14 results in any way at all. That's the problem!

To make matters worse for you, you now also have to contend with Jull's paper in 2010 where they specifically examined part of the actual cloth sample from the Arizona C14 tests, and confirmed that there was no evidence of any such claimed patch or repair.

Those are real scientific research papers properly published by independent properly qualified scientists. You cannot counter that by posting links to scientific sounding claims in articles privately written by Christian shroud fanatics on the internet.

Just post any real published science research paper where any independent scientist has ever claimed the C14 results are wrong. Don’t do anything else. Just do that.

 

[pakeha]

Yet another crackpot accepting donations to have the shroud tested to prove the C14 dating wrong. Antonacci's website.

http://shroudstory.com/2013/04/18/a...esolve-disputes-regarding-the-shroud/#respond

Even shroud believer Dan Porter at shroudstory.com is skeptical.

Nice catch!

...1.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.
1.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice....

It's been explained to you why this idea takes you into conspiracy country.
Are you quite certain you're prepared to claim a Vatican conspiracy is afoot here?

...To make matters worse for you, you now also have to contend with Jull's paper in 2010 where they specifically examined part of the actual cloth sample from the Arizona C14 tests, and confirmed that there was no evidence of any such claimed patch or repair. ...

Jabba, please stop ignoring this point about the Jull paper.
After all, you were the one who first posted it to the thread.

 

[catsmate]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.
- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…<gibbersnip>

How about you stop wasting our timw with further pathetic attempts to control the debate and actually produce some evidence for your beliefs?
Do some actual research, think for yourself instead of unquestioningly accepting what crap other shroudies spout.

 

[Jabba]

...

Did you bother to look?


Not to forget the statements by such experts as Gilbert Raes, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, Franco Testore and Gabriel Vial.
People who, unlike Jabba and the absent JP, have the skills and experience but actually examined the cloth.

Indeed in the preliminary discussions about where to remove the sample for radiocarbon dating Flury-Lemberg pointed out that STURP's initial choice were more likely to be contaminated.


Well he had linked to a few bits, though when examined they either prove to be nonsense, already debunked, wrong, irrelevant or actually contradictory to his claims.
However I feel I should provide references for the statement I've made about various aspects of the radiocarbon dating, therefore here's my reading list:
Tite Turin Shroud; Nature 332, 6164 (1988), p. 482.
Gove Radiocarbon-dating the Shroud; Nature 333, 6169 (1988), p. 110.
Smith Dating the Shroud; Nature 328, 6127 (1987),
Tite Turin Shroud; Nature 327, 6122 (1987), p. 456.
Gove Turin Shroud; Nature 327, 6124 (1987), p. 652.
Dutton Protocols for Turin Shroud; Nature 331, 6152 (1988), p. 108.
Dutton The Shroud of Turin; Nature 332, 6162 (1988), p. 300.
Gove Turin workshop on radiocarbon dating the Turin Shroud; Nuclear Instruments And Methods In Physics Research B29 (1987), pp. 193-195
Harbotle, Heino Carbon dating the Shroud of Turin - A test of recent improvements in the technique;
Schwalbe Isotope measurements and provenance studies of the Turin Shroud;
Both in Archaeological Chemistry IV, (ACS Advances in Chemistry 220)



It'd also be nice if Jabba (one one of the shroudies) actually did the calculations on how much material would need to be introduced, and of what age, to skew the tests. This would show they have some understanding of the process.

Catsmate,

- I requested the first two articles on your list from the State library, and received them within a few hours. Unfortunately, they are in a form that I can't just cut and paste from, -- nor, have I been able to convert them to a form that I CAN cut and paste from. And besides, I'm a two finger typist at best....
- As you might expect, I seem to be the first person to have this problem -- but so far, the people at the library can't tell me how to fix it either.
- Anyway, in the first article, Tite states the following. “The shroud samples will be taken from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.”

- In other words, I misspoke.
- When previously going back to the Damon et al article, I had found essentially the same wording, but didn’t notice that it refuted my claim... I wasn’t thinking about my exact wording at the time. My bad, but that is, at least roughly, what happened.
- I SHOULD have said that the scientists didn’t tell us that THEY didn’t find/see any patches or charred areas near the sample, nor tell us HOW THEY EXAMINED the area near the sample in order to come to their conclusions.
- Superficially, at least, as far as we know, it could be that they were expecting any patches to be obvious -- as there were plenty of those. And again, Flury-Lemberg could have based her conclusion on not finding evidence of patching on the back...

 

[Akri]

it could be that they were expecting any patches to be obvious -- as there were plenty of those. And again, Flury-Lemberg could have based her conclusion on not finding evidence of patching on the back...

Is there any valid reason to think that patching wouldn't be obvious (note: a desire for the C14 date to be wrong is not a valid reason)? Is there any valid reason to think that it would be a mistake to conclude, based on a lack of evidence of patching on the back of the cloth, that there was no patching?

Do you have any actual evidence for patching, or can you only offer hypothetical scenarios where patching could potentially have been missed?

 

[John Jones]

Here's a better "map"
1.0 C14

 

[John Jones]

- I screwed up my last post and left out much of what I meant to include, and now I’m afraid to look at the posts that followed. Not that you guys would LIKE what I intended to post – just that you probably wouldn’t DISLIKE it as much.
- Anyway, this (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is what I meant to post as an excerpt from a very early beta model of a “map” of our debate…

[SNIP!]--- Jabba

Stop posting this stuff!!!111eleven!

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, admit that you have NO valid objection to the C14 dating, and this thread will be over.

 

[Dinwar]

- I requested the first two articles on your list from the State library, and received them within a few hours. Unfortunately, they are in a form that I can't just cut and paste from, -- nor, have I been able to convert them to a form that I CAN cut and paste from.

If you can't put the concepts into your own words you probably don't understand them very well.

- As you might expect, I seem to be the first person to have this problem -- but so far, the people at the library can't tell me how to fix it either.

Not at all. Most of the references I've used on this forum I haven't cut-and-pasted from. I put the concepts into my own words. Do that.

When previously going back to the Damon et al article, I had found essentially the same wording, but didn’t notice that it refuted my claim

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

- I SHOULD have said that the scientists didn’t tell us that THEY didn’t find/see any patches or charred areas near the sample, nor tell us HOW THEY EXAMINED the area near the sample in order to come to their conclusions.

No, you shouldn't have. They didn't HAVE to examine the shroud. If someone else did, and their examination is sufficient to prove there was no patch, the scientists don't need to re-do the examination themselves. It is entirely sufficient to say "We took the samples in an area free from patching" and insert a citation for the paper about the analysis. You are still demanding that we ignore the fact that research has proven the sample was taken in an area free from patching merely because it wasn't the C14 researchers who did the analysis. You're still demanding that we ignore data.

- Superficially, at least, as far as we know, it could be that they were expecting any patches to be obvious -- as there were plenty of those. And again, Flury-Lemberg could have based her conclusion on not finding evidence of patching on the back...

Unsubstantiated speculation. If we had followed your demands and conducted this like a trial you'd by now be serving time for contempt of court.

Your baseless speculations don't count as evidence, Jabba. You need to provide REAL evidence.