I think I understand. Anyway, I think perhaps we should distinguish between the characteristics of the sample - one piece or many, threads or postage stamps, or whatever - and where it would come from. I think it is clear that although Gove thought the date would be seriously compromised by reducing the number of labs from seven to three, those who finally got the job were happy with that decision, and with the decision to take a single cutting from one place. Although this fitted in with the church not wanting to make holes all over the shroud, it suited the C14 scientists as they were more likely to get consistent results. However, it does not seem to have occurred to anyone, until the moment Riggi actually picked up his scissors, to decide whereabouts the piece was to come from.
Hugh,
Jabba's signature quotes: Indeed; she's hardly mentioned here, but often quoted as an independent 'expert witness' by defenders of the more peculiar hypotheses of image formation. However, in one of her video appearances (with Russ Breault), shorn of any 'quantum fruitloopery' (a UK New Scientist magazine epithet for any unjustified resort to quantum theory as an adequate explanation for any unusual claim), she inadvertently supports the painting theory much better than the natural formation one. Piczek claims to demonstrate that the legs of the image are much shorter than they should be, as if an artist had painted a man lying on his back with his knees bent. The ventral image is therefore somewhat shorter than the dorsal image. She and Russ Breault get confused here, and don't realise that even with his knees bent, the same man's image, front and back, at the same time, should be the same length regardless of perspective. By adducing a horizontal cloth, but making the two images different sizes, they cannot logically claim that the images are of the same man at the same time.
Me neither. Let's rule him out as a scientist.
Riggi was certainly not Ballestrero's foremost scientist; that was Gonella. As a good Catholic, and employed by Ballestrero to wield the scissors, he would have followed the church, but I don't know that he 'represented' it anywhere.
Gonella was not a member of the Pontifical Academy, and resented Chagas' authority over the matter of the shroud. When it became apparent that the Pontifical Academy was not going to be involved, he was very protective of 'his' authority over it.
I shouldn't bother as I'm afraid they would be wasted on me. The philosophy of the nature of debate doesn't keep me awake at night at all.
Quite, so we must try to base all our opinions on primary sources whenever we can.
I think it's important not to divorce scientists from their own cultural contexts. Many dedicated carbon daters would no more have wanted to chop little pieces out of the shroud than many bishops, knowing its importance as an archaeological artefact, regardless of provenance. Would objective scientists prefer to test numerous pieces of Christopher Columbus's handkerchief (if such a thing existed), and not just one small piece from an oft handled corner. Possibly, but I doubt if such scientists exist!
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor
The second one is particularly egregious. (Jabba, do you know what defines a "good idea?" Hint: it "works.")
This raises some interesting questions: has the shroud ever been tested for traces of fermented frogpiss? Could fermented frogpiss have thrown off the dating results? If you had enough frogs, could you make an (almost) invisible patch out of fermented frogpiss?
#7427 Olowkow advises me to check other sites for Jabba's nefarious activity. I do, only to find two of them dead and one moribund. The moribund one has a reference to a video featuring Piczek, "a particle physicist." I feel like disputing this, but doubt if it will elicit much response.
