Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion. IMO, in order for any ongoing and complex written debate to be useful, it needs to be accompanied by something of an abstract...

The following is an abstract of my take on the sample selection issue re who chose the area to be dated. It fits into the numbering system given on page 160, post #6382.

Certainly, you guys disagree with my take on this specific issue -- so, please let me know just how you disagree with it.

If one of you decides to play my game, I'll just add your abstract to my map (if it isn't too long). I'm not sure what I'll do if I get more than one. I'll try to add them all, but I don't really know what to expect, so just adding them all may not make any sense in terms of an abstract.

Jabba

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.
2.1.4.2. I ultimately concluded that
2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.
2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.
2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).
2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.
2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.
2.1.4.3. Surely there was a lot of ego involvement re the outcome of all this, and most likely the carbon dating scientists were happy to date only one small piece and not open the floor to the potential for “outliers” and doubt.

 

[Garrette]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion. IMO, in order for any ongoing and complex written debate to be useful, it needs to be accompanied by something of an abstract...

The following is an abstract of my take on the sample selection issue re who chose the area to be dated. It fits into the numbering system given on page 160, post #6382.

Certainly, you guys disagree with my take on this specific issue -- so, please let me know just how you disagree with it.

If one of you decides to play my game, I'll just add your abstract to my map (if it isn't too long). I'm not sure what I'll do if I get more than one. I'll try to add them all, but I don't really know what to expect, so just adding them all may not make any sense in terms of an abstract.

Jabba

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.
2.1.4.2. I ultimately concluded that
2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.
2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.
2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).
2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.
2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.
2.1.4.3. Surely there was a lot of ego involvement re the outcome of all this, and most likely the carbon dating scientists were happy to date only one small piece and not open the floor to the potential for “outliers” and doubt.

To summarize:

You insist the scientists were both biased and unwilling to control for bias despite having exactly zero evidence of such. Further, you choose to continue misrepresenting the actual science. Finally, you consider unsanctioned and unprovenanced analysis via kitchen experiment and photographic speculation to be superior to controlled and transparent peer-reviewed objective science even when three independent labs reach the same conclusions.

You do this while continuing to treat this as a subjective debate and while calling all the scientists in question liars and incompetent fools. You do this though you have repeatedly demonstrated both amazing bias and amazing ignorance along with a refusal to accept fact.

Mr. Dunning, I shall call you Kruger.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion. IMO, in order for any ongoing and complex written debate to be useful, it needs to be accompanied by something of an abstract...

In other words, you're reverting back to attempting to dictate the terms of the debate to us once more.

Please answer this: Why do you find it wrong that people who know how C14 dating works, after consultation with relevant textile experts and the shroud's owners, determined where to take the sample? You seem to think that since experts decided where to take the sample, it is therefore invalid. The logic makes no bloody sense.

 

[Mister Earl]

Jabba, at this point, you are pretty much a lost cause. I don't see why anyone is willing to debate with you, given you have no problems calling people frauds and liars with zero evidence to support those claims. You also have no problems whatsoever in ignoring all the evidence people have taken time out of their day to provide you that shows that you are wrong.

You are, quite frankly, a waste of time that could have been spent better elsewhere.

Why should we listen to you, explain things to you, or deal with you, given that you've dealt with everyone in this extremely dishonest fashion?

 

[Jabba]

2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.
2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.
2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).
2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.
2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.

If you disagree with any of the above, please let me know which one(s) and Why.

Jabba

 

[Belz...]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion.

Oh, let me help: the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake.


Make no mistake: NO ONE in this thread, at this point, cares what you think. Your only option at this point is to admit it's a fake and move on. The Shroud is a very interesting artifact in itself, but your dishonesty is just making this discussion silly.

 

[pakeha]

...2.1.4.2.5.
The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts. ...

Well, Jabba, what does this tell us?

 

[Belz...]

2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.
2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.
2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).
2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.
2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.

If you disagree with any of the above, please let me know which one(s) and Why.

Jabba

You are entirely deluded. No one here agrees with ANY of your points. You have already been told why. Your dishonesty is just embarassing.

 

[Akri]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion.

That's great, but could you keep it out of the thread? You're the only person who wants to see it, and it takes up a lot of space.

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.

Bull. Their other choice was to say "this does not meet the necessary standards, and thus is not viable for testing." The reason they accepted the sample wasn't that they "had no other choice", but that it was a valid sample.

 

[Agatha]

<waffle snip>
2.1.4.3. and most likely the carbon dating scientists were happy to date only one small piece and not open the floor to the potential for “outliers” and doubt because they were assured by everyone involved, including STuRP, that the samples were representative of the entire shroud, as there was no imaginary patch in that area, the linen banding which is not visible to the naked eye continues through that area uninterrupted and the area was deliberately chosen to be free of both patches and scorching.

3. None of the above matters a damn, since carbon dating is an objective process. The dating was even done blinded at one laboratory, providing an additional piece of evidence that the results are reliable.

To which I could add:

4. The only people still holding out for a first century date are those who are being wilfully blind to reality, or lying to themselves. As these people tend to be Christians, perhaps they should ask themselves if their God or their Jesus approves of living a lie like that. I'm sure I've read something about false witness in that Bible of theirs... oh, and there is always John 8:32.

5. The shroud is a marvellous piece of art, and should be appreciated for what it is - a 14th century artefact - and not be regarded as something which it is not.

You still have not explained what you mean by a "carbon dating mindset", please do not insult our intelligence again by defining it as a "mindset devoted to carbon dating".

 

[John Jones]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion. IMO, in order for any ongoing and complex written debate to be useful, it needs to be accompanied by something of an abstract...

STOP POSTING THAT HEADACHE-INDUCING MULTICOLORED NONSENSE IMMEDIATELY!

If I can find some part of the MA you have violated, be assured that I will report you without hesitation.

 

[hugh farey]

Uote

2.1.4. The scientists themselves selected the sample.

This, I take it, is a proposition to be explored. Is that right? I'm not sure there was a cohesive body which could be called "the scientists." There were a number of protocols drawn up at various times by groups of scientists who rarely consisted of the same members. On the day when the shroud was actually cut, everybody present was a scientist of sorts except perhaps Cardinal Ballestrero. The famous 'two hour argument' about where to take the sample from was between two scientists (Gonella and Riggi), not 'science' and 'the church.' The details of this argument are far from clear, and I don't know who argued for the Raes corner, or where else was being argued for by the other side.

2.1.4.1. Not really. Church selected sample; scientists merely accepted cause they had no other choice.

I think it likely that in the absence of scientific consensus, the decision was made in the end, by Cardinal Ballestrero. Most of the scientists would have agreed (or at least been content with) with his choice, several of them possibly on cultural rather than scientific grounds.

2.1.4.2. I ultimately concluded that
2.1.4.2.1. There was a LOT of ego and emotion involved in the ten years of scientific grappling re the sample(s) to be tested.

Not really. There was quite a lot of scientific argument, but ego? I don't know about that. Not until the last two hours before the cutting.

2.1.4.2.2. Back in the late seventies, scientists were still “thinking small.” They were thinking in terms of what had already been made available to them, that the Church might never make any more available and proposed using one of the Raes samples from 1973.

When first mooted, the minimum size was quite big, so naturally the scientists would have been grateful for whatever they could get. They may well have thought, even as the size got smaller and smaller, that they were unlikely to receive anything more than the minimum.

2.1.4.2.3. Later on, at least some of the involved scientists (only those connected to STURP, I suspect) began to enlarge their expectations, and began to consider dating multiple samples from multiple locations.
2.1.4.2.4. By the time the final science-determined-protocol was decided, however, the more hopeful scientists were in the minority, and the others (mostly those connected to the carbon dating labs) proposed only one small location (cut into 7 pieces).

I believe the single site was agreed to at the British Museum conference in January 1988 in order to try to ensure more homogeneity to the results, in case of different contaminations around the rest of the shroud.

2.1.4.2.5. The final specific decision was made by two Church fellows (surely within the guidelines set by higher ups), with the advice of two linen experts.
2.1.4.2.6. After an hour or two of debate, they chose a sample of postage stamp size adjacent to the Raes sample.
2.1.4.2.7. Whatever, there was a lot riding on being included in the dating, and the involved labs didn’t want to rock the boat.

Who were the two 'church fellows?' Cardinal Ballestrero was one. If Gonella, Riggi, Testore or Vial were the other, then they were scientists of a sort too.

2.1.4.2.8. The sample selection was more complicated than I first thought, but ultimately, the Church did choose the sample taken and the scientists merely accepted what the Church chose.

Well, as I say, many of the 'church' were 'scientists' as well. If there is any record of who said what, I think it would be best to name names rather than generalise the sides of the argument.

2.1.4.3. Surely there was a lot of ego involvement re the outcome of all this, and most likely the carbon dating scientists were happy to date only one small piece and not open the floor to the potential for “outliers” and doubt.

The carbon dating scientists had already decided on one piece long before they arrived in Turin, and in that, at least, none of them were surprised or disappointed.

 

[John Jones]

If you disagree with any of the above, please let me know which one(s) and Why.
[...]
Jabba

I didn't read it, except for the last sentence. It's a waste of time talking to you about his. HTH

 

[catsmate]

<gibbersnip>Jabba

As you're aware there are a number of errors, or rather deliberate lies, in this mass of nonsense. We've covered this before and I don't see any reason to waste my time further indulging you.

 

[Dinwar]

As you're aware there are a number of errors, or rather deliberate lies, in this mass of nonsense. We've covered this before and I don't see any reason to waste my time further indulging you.

This is kinda like questioning the validity of a signature on a bit of movie memorabilia increasing the price in a comicbook store. If we're going to start applying that type of logic to this thread, the whole point seems to collapse in on itself.

 

[catsmate]

This is kinda like questioning the validity of a signature on a bit of movie memorabilia increasing the price in a comicbook store. If we're going to start applying that type of logic to this thread, the whole point seems to collapse in on itself.

Let it implode into black hole of ignorance and delusion.........

 

[TjW]

Let it implode into black hole of ignorance and delusion.........

Yes. Let it return whence it came.

 

[jond]

3. None of the above matters a damn, since carbon dating is an objective process. The dating was even done blinded at one laboratory, providing an additional piece of evidence that the results are reliable.

To which I could add:

4. The only people still holding out for a first century date are those who are being wilfully blind to reality, or lying to themselves. As these people tend to be Christians, perhaps they should ask themselves if their God or their Jesus approves of living a lie like that. I'm sure I've read something about false witness in that Bible of theirs... oh, and there is always John 8:32.

5. The shroud is a marvellous piece of art, and should be appreciated for what it is - a 14th century artefact - and not be regarded as something which it is not.

You still have not explained what you mean by a "carbon dating mindset", please do not insult our intelligence again by defining it as a "mindset devoted to carbon dating".

An excellent post, Agatha. Maybe it'll be read by it's intended audience.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm still trying to develop a "map," or a useful summary, of our discussion.

You're overcomplicating it.

1.0 Jabba wants the shroud to be the real burial cloth of the real Jesus from the first century CE.

1.1 Anything contradicting this belief will be rejected.​

IMO, in order for any ongoing and complex written debate to be useful, it needs to be accompanied by something of an abstract...

Your opinion is far less than worthless.

The following is an abstract of my take on the sample selection issue re who chose the area to be dated. It fits into the numbering system given on page 160, post #6382.

Your numbering system is a bigger joke than Peace Crusader's new calendar or DOC's continuing use of the argumentum ad so.

Certainly, you guys disagree with my take on this specific issue -- so, please let me know just how you disagree with it.

In every way possible.

<drivel>

 

[pakeha]

Ah, thanks for reminding us of PC's new calendar, O Mighty One!
A round of Dom for all!