And that is why I require the 7 and 8 year olds I teach to provide answers in their own words.
-
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
And that is why I require the 7 and 8 year olds I teach to provide answers in their own words.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Have you forgotten about the Jull paper, Jabba?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
...and the STURP pictures from 1978?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,006
Read. Understand. Summarise using your own words. Don't just, as you usually do, copy/paste bits that you think support your opinions.
Perhaps others didn't merely try and paste from them but rather read them for themselves.
Correct, as was decided (and done) after much discussion by experts.
Why would those carrying out the dating discuss this? It was irrelevant to the paper, except as background.
Madame Flury-Lemberg was not the only expert to examine the shroud, a fact you've had pointed out to you several times now. She examined the shroud on several occasions, both sides
Again, as has been pointed out several times, multiple experts using a variety of techniques, and on several occasions, examined the shroud and found none of the magic patching you claim exist.
Indeed, thousands of them.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I'll see about getting the Freer-Waters, Jull paper from the State library. Until then, here are a couple of related papers supporting patching in the sample area.
- They claim lots of evidence for patching -- in part, from the STURP research.
- Do any of you guys have direct access to the Freer-Waters, Jull paper?
--- Jabba
- They claim lots of evidence for patching -- in part, from the STURP research.
- Do any of you guys have direct access to the Freer-Waters, Jull paper?
--- Jabba
Last edited:
You brought up the Jull paper earlier in the thread, had you not read it at that time?
You appear to have omitted the links to the pro-patch papers. However, if they are the usual arguments from kitchen-table chemistry and magic, then there really is no point in linking.
I echo catsmate; don't copy and paste from the papers unless you are critiquing a particular section. Remember, too, that the authors are not required to second guess and explicitly deny the craziest of conspiracy theories. If a paper does not say "we checked every thread for evidence of pixie spittle", that does not mean you should assume there is pixie spittle on the threads.
In the case of the shroud, ten years work went in to checking both sides of the shroud for an area suitable for testing, to find an area free from patching (including the AIP™), scorching, repair and damage. At some stage you have to rely on the repeated assurances and expertise of those who examined the shroud (not just by eye but by using different photographic techniques) that the sampled area was free of any evidence of patching.
The STuRP photographs showing the invisible banding on the linen indicate by themselves that there was no patch. If the only evidence against a patch was those photographs, that would be sufficient to be conclusive that there is no patch.
But those STuRP photographs are not the only evidence. You also have the evidence of the Jull paper, the evidence of the people who spent ten years examining the shroud in minute detail and the fact that all three labs got the same dating result showing that the material they worked with was identical.
At some point, Jabba, you need to embrace reality on this matter and stop thinking that you can wish a patch into existence if you just close your eyes and hope hard enough. You cannot wish a patch into existence just because you want one, any more than you can wish a million dollars into your bank account just because you want the money.
You cannot turn this mediaeval piece of cloth into a first century artefact just because you want it to be one. Reality is what it is, not what you wish it to be. Reality is no patch in that sampled area, reality is that the cloth is from the 14th century. Reality is a much better place to be than fantasy-land, and reality is the only way to break free from self-delusion, worry and fear.
In the above you are returning to the same old argument of you saying that perhaps the C14 sample was a patch, but none of the C14 staff at any of the labs ever noticed it.
We have been through that idea numerous times before, but -
(1) all three labs examined their samples under microscopic enlargement and none of them found any sign of any patch.
(2) all three labs measured effectively the same date throughout the entire area of their sample pieces. So all three labs would have needed to have the same amount of the same patching in all three samples (and in all the subdivisions of those samples).
(3) Jull's paper specifically refutes the patch claim, and it does that using what was actually part of the cloth left over from the Arizona sample.
I could also add that until the C14 results were published, nobody had suggested that there was any notion of any patch in that region. The patch only arose afterwards amongst shroud believers trying to claim that the C14 dates must be wrong.
Further we could again point out the Mme Flury-Lemberg and prof Ghibirti, who were working for the Vatican, have both stated on record several times that there was definitely no such patch and that Rogers was definitely mistaken.
Also of course (yet again) - Rogers never saw the sample at all. He never saw the shroud either. But on the other hand, he was a long-time shroud believer, had been a founding member of STURP from the 1970's, and was trying to sell a book claiming the shroud was real and the C14 must be wrong.
And of course - Rogers paper was fatally flawed by two facts (1)he did not himself know where his sample fibres came from, and (2)his vanillin dates were based on the entirely false assumption that the shroud had never been warmer than about 20-25C, when in fact it had been in a fire hot enough to melt silver at 750-900C.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Sorry about that.
- These are the papers.
http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html
http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford CO4-08.pdf
--- Jabba
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You do realise this an English-speaking forum, don't you?
Let's just jump straight to the conclusion of that paper, shall we?
Last edited:
slyjoe
Illuminator
You didn't read the first paper did you?
ETA: And didn't understand the second, did you?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Seriously, Jabba. Just admit you were wrong, that the C14 data is correct, and that the shroud is a fake despite your best wishes, and we'll all be on our merry way.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Rich:
Do you, yourself, read Italian? Do you, yourself, have any idea what Rinaldi is claiming in his paper? Do you,yourself, have any idea whether the two links you provided, support or contradict each other?
Do you consider your behaviour honest?
I will repeat a trope that I have visited before, and that many many others here and elsewhere have raised. It is clear that the only argument you have against the medieval date of the linen is that, in your uninformed, unqualified, and uncomprehending opinion, that is the "wrong" date. In your desperate need to have something, anything, with which to shore up your superstition, you are, apparently, willing to resort to whatever tactic you hope will conceal the fact that the linen is a medieval artifact.
Are you simply hoping for victory by attrition?
I would appreciate an actual answer...
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Ian,
- I think that the following is all that Damon et al say about "microscopic enlargement."
- Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.
All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material.
- Would some of the cleaning procedures remove paint?
- Would their microscopic searches insure recognizing what the shroudie researchers claim are signs of patching?
--- Jabba
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Please respond to post 6414, Rich...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9167119&postcount=6414
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah, at this point I think it's pretty clear that Jabba doesn't even read what we post to him.
My Italian isn't great but this seems to be someone claiming that a tiny (less than 0.5 cm sq) piece of cloth which they have seen on a video has a different number of warp and weft threads per cm than another piece of cloth which Raes claimed came from the shroud. Convincing, huh.
The authors have not seen, measured or examined the piece of cloth in person, nor have they demonstrated that the shroud weave is perfectly regular, nor have they demonstrated that the piece of material they saw on the video was oriented in the same way as other pieces.
Further, in the postcript, they withdraw the conclusion of almost the whole of the paper, and add some 'considerations' of which the last is an admission that shroudies have always had to work with threads obtained in a clandestine fashion or of doubtful provenance, and a hope that the radiocarbon dating laboratories kept any of the material and will later choose to sell it, because shroudies will pay lots of money.
And we are back to the AIP™. Are you thinking that if Benford and Marino wish hard enough, maybe the patch will magically appear?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
My Italian isn't great but this seems to be someone claiming that a tiny (less than 0.5 cm sq) piece of cloth which they have seen on a video has a different number of warp and weft threads per cm than another piece of cloth which Raes claimed came from the shroud. Convincing, huh.
The authors have not seen, measured or examined the piece of cloth in person, nor have they demonstrated that the shroud weave is perfectly regular, nor have they demonstrated that the piece of material they saw on the video was oriented in the same way as other pieces.
Further, in the postcript, they withdraw the conclusion of almost the whole of the paper, and add some 'considerations' of which the last is an admission that shroudies have always had to work with threads obtained in a clandestine fashion or of doubtful provenance, and a hope that the radiocarbon dating laboratories kept any of the material and will later choose to sell it, because shroudies will pay lots of money.
And we are back to the AIP™. Are you thinking that if Benford and Marino wish hard enough, maybe the patch will magically appear?
They obviously saw with the eyes of Faith, also known as blind Faith.
- Status