Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Sideroxylon]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

There are many well considered posts over this and recent pages that you can address.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

May I take it this means you will finally be addressing my questions?

 

[Dinwar]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

Jabba, you've flat-out and flagrantly accused me and my colleagues of fraud. And you've had the naked audacity to admit to knowing nothing about what we do, while at the same time insisting that we should all abide by your rules in both debate and sample site selection!

You don't deserve respect because you have not shown respect. Technically speaking, you've committed numerous acts of libel in this thread.

Calling you ignorant for not understanding that a 500 year old bit of cloth isn't dangerous is the least you can expect. It's no insult--that's the KINDEST explanation for such a statement I can come up with. And you've yet to address how sample size is relevant past the obvious criteria of providing enough to get a reading.

Also, as a bit of advice to hughfarey: Please note the nature of Jabba's complaint against us. Our arguments aren't wrong because of anything related to the arguments, but because we're being mean. When you have to stoop to that level, it's a very, very good sign that your argument is untennable, even if we disregard the outright hypocracy of Jabba making that accusation.

 

[Belz...]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

Posters here have been exceptionally patient with you, Jabba. Not only is it dishonest to imply as you do that the situation is otherwise, but it basically reads "now I will only read posts which agree with me."

 

[Agatha]

Many people have been nothing but respectful towards you for hundreds of posts, Jabba, and have been met with:

• you attempting to control who should post and how the discussion should proceed
• you asking for links that you've been given repeatedly
• your insinuations of conspiracy and accusations of dishonesty
• you ignoring the majority of the questions, comments and observations with the excuse that you have no time, yet you find the time for junk posts which tell us that at some point in the future, you intend to post something substantive
• most of all, you ignoring everything that's been said, the whole of the evidence and the entirety of reality in favour of your frankly untenable hypothesis.

If you feel you have not been respected, Jabba, I can only suggest you consider the meaning of "as you sow, so shall you reap".

Are you getting less respect than before? Yes. Did you give any respect to anyone else? To be frank, unless you thought you could recruit them to your fantasy of the shroud being the actual snotrag of your poster boy, then no, you didn't.

 

[hugh farey]

I have to assume you're right here. If I ever have the chance, I'll try to look into that relationship some more to see if I was basing my opinion about Riggi on something more than that one sentence somewhere calling him the foremost scientific adviser to Ballestrero

You have to be quite careful with sources here. Anybody in a white coat is called an 'expert scientist' by some people (You only have to look at Isabel Piczek for an example of that). The obituaries of Riggi and Gonella on shroud.com very definitely place Riggi second string.

Here, I think, we just have a good example of a basic problem in debate. It has to do with definitions. I used, "represented," perhaps incorrectly, to mean that Riggi was following the Church's guidelines or dictates in the decision making with which he was charged. So, I think that we agree on this point as well.

You're certainly correct that Riggi followed the church's guidelines, but then so did everybody else in the end. If you mean he was the man who decided where to cut, then I'm not so sure. I guess that would have been Gonella and the Archbishop.

I'm not sure of your point here; mostly, I was just saying that Gonella was following guidelines, or instructions, from the Church in his promotions and decision making.

Only as far as he had to. I don't know of any evidence about the extent to which Chagas and the Pontifical Academy influenced either the size or the place of the final cut.

But, for one thing, I would think that the size of the example in your analogy weakens the analogy -- and, even the emotional reaction to taking numerous samples from a dirty handkerchief might affect our judgment as to the need for numerous samples, and thereby weakens the analogy

The principle is that scientists don't work in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a 'pure carbon dater.' Every decision about carbon dating is hedged around with archaeological, historical and cultural considerations, and the scientists are involved in these as much as the curators.

I disagree. High-quality secondary sources are more than adequate 99% of the time. In the case of the shroud in particular, the secondary sources are perfectly adequate, as no one has challanged the C14 results. It's advisable to go to the primary sources, yes, but not at the expense of actually drawing conclusions, nor at the expense of valid data.

The issue isn't the nature of the source, but the quality of the data. If the data are true, the sources is fundamentally irrelevant.

Yes, I'll go with that. Basically I want opinions to be backed up by facts, and if there is a dispute about the facts, then the best ones you can find will have the greatest weight.

No "Maybe" here, Jabba. This is standard practice in archaeology, which is the field this falls under. An archaeologist who wants to destroy an artifact in order to date it is an unemployed archaeologist.

Thoroughly agree.

Hugh, there's no such thing as a "dedicated carbon dater". You may as well be talking about a dedicated hammerer, or a dedicated spreadsheeter. It's a tool in our toolbox, one that has its uses and also has known limitations.

Oh, I agree completely. I was starting with a hypothetical extreme, scientists whose only interest in an archaeological artefact is how accurately it can be dated regardless of how badly it was damaged in the process, and suggesting that this man simply doesn't exist.

Hugh,
- Putting aside your analogy for the moment, you seem to be saying that really objective scientists most-concerned-with-determining-the-real-date-of-the-shroud might prefer to test numerous pieces of it from numerous locations rather than test one small piece from an oft handled corner.
- If so, so far, this is where I would disagree -- I think that truly objective scientists would have clearly preferred multiple samples (several?) from multiple locations.
- Am I understanding your position?
--- Rich

Not quite. I think it true that up to a limit the more of an artefact is sputtered away in an AMS machine the more accurate will be the assessment of its age, and that in the case of the shroud in 1988 that probably amounted to a fair chunk of cloth. However I don't think anybody involved was, or should have been, that objective. If, say, Donahue or Hall had been left alone in the room with a pair of scissors and free rein about how much and where to take their samples, would they have done any different from what actually happened, I wonder?

Should we all just withdraw to the smoking room and leave these two alone?

Can't I sell tickets?

 

[Dinwar]

I was starting with a hypothetical extreme, scientists whose only interest in an archaeological artefact is how accurately it can be dated regardless of how badly it was damaged in the process, and suggesting that this man simply doesn't exist.

Fair enough.

I think it true that up to a limit the more of an artefact is sputtered away in an AMS machine the more accurate will be the assessment of its age

That's actually not true. You need enough to get a reading, and the sample needs to be large enough to be representative; however, larger samples just burn more material. After a point, you just start getting the same numbers over and over again--because those are the right numbers. Extensive studies have been conducted for C14 dating (and most other types) to determine how much material is necessary to get a good result. Adding extra really doesn't add to the quality of the analysis.

 

[hugh farey]

Fair enough.

That's actually not true. You need enough to get a reading, and the sample needs to be large enough to be representative; however, larger samples just burn more material. After a point, you just start getting the same numbers over and over again--because those are the right numbers. Extensive studies have been conducted for C14 dating (and most other types) to determine how much material is necessary to get a good result. Adding extra really doesn't add to the quality of the analysis.

Ah, thank you. And would I be right that in 1988, about 1mg of carbon in its little pellet was adequate for about two 'sputterings?' That's why I stopped worrying about Arizona chopping its samples into smaller and smaller pieces. It seemed there was still sufficient for the job, even at 5mg or 6mg of cloth.

 

[pakeha]

...That's interesting. I can't make a definitive statement but I believe Ballestrero was quite enthusiastic about the shroud about publicising the shroud. He became archbishop of Turin in 1977 and initiated a new programme of public exhibition and persuaded the pope (Paul VI) to attend. The then cardinal of Venice, later pope John Paul I, was also supposed to visit.
However Ballestrero was also supportive of scientific analysis, he arranged the 1978 examination; his opposition to the early requests for carbon dating appears to be genuinely motivated by a desire to avoid damage to the cloth.
His acceptance of the carbon dating was far easier than many others, including some of the former STURP group.
Overall I'd say he saw it as a major artifact in his care, and a money spinner, but wasn't as deeply committed to it as many of the shroudies.


Hmm, tricky. IIRR the labs performed the testing gratis, and paid for some of the expenses, with the church, in the form of Ballestrero, funding the rest.

Thanks for the infors, catsmate1. I needed that perspective.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments. It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

1.0 How that respect is to be shown
1.1 Abide by Jabba's wishes at all times by
1.1.1 Conforming to Jabba's preferred debating style
1.1.2 Not asking Jabba any difficult questions
1.1.3 Do not draw attention to Jabba's
1.1.3.1 Dishonesty
1.1.3.2 Evasion
1.1.3.3 Record of same on
1.1.3.3.1 debating the dirty teatowel at
1.1.3.3.1.1 Believer sites
1.1.3.3.1.2 Other sceptics sites
1.1.3.3.2 Other topics
1.1.3.3.2.1 Here
1.1.3.3.2.2 Other websites
1.1.4 Do not point out that this "breakthrough in structured debate" is so tedious and disruptive to creative thought that only a true obsessive could could consider it anything other than than a distraction, at best.*






*apologies if someone has attempted the above previously, but I tend to skip over the form of such posts, without considering the words as I abhor the whole dishonest charade

 

[Jabba]

Sample Selected

Hugh,
- I’m just trying to better understand our apparent disagreement re the extent to which the scientists were responsible for the number and location(s) of the sample(s).
- So far, I’m thinking that the Church was basically responsible for the number and locations of the samples, and that the scientists basically just took what they could get.
- I think that your position is that the scientists did have significant sway here – and maybe, that while the scientists would have preferred multiple locations, they were basically happy with just the one, and with where it was.
- How’s that?
--- Rich

 

[zooterkin]

Hugh,
- I’m just trying to better understand our apparent disagreement re the extent to which the scientists were responsible for the number and location(s) of the sample(s).

How about your actual disagreement about the results of the dating? Does that not give you pause for thought?

 

[pakeha]

Hugh,
- I’m just trying to better understand our apparent disagreement re the extent to which the scientists were responsible for the number and location(s) of the sample(s).
- So far, I’m thinking that the Church was basically responsible for the number and locations of the samples, and that the scientists basically just took what they could get.
- I think that your position is that the scientists did have significant sway here – and maybe, that while the scientists would have preferred multiple locations, they were basically happy with just the one, and with where it was.
- How’s that?
--- Rich

Hi, Jabba.
Out of curiosity, what does it really matter, from what location the samples were taken?

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh,
- I’m just trying to better understand our apparent disagreement re the extent to which the scientists were responsible for the number and location(s) of the sample(s).
- So far, I’m thinking that the Church was basically responsible for the number and locations of the samples, and that the scientists basically just took what they could get.
- I think that your position is that the scientists did have significant sway here – and maybe, that while the scientists would have preferred multiple locations, they were basically happy with just the one, and with where it was.
- How’s that?
--- Rich

I don't see this discussion as having two opposing sides, really, yours and mine, as we are approaching the question from different angles. You seem to be placing 'the church' and 'the scientists' in more or less opposition, and you support 'the church' while I support 'the scientists.' I honestly don't think that epitomises the situation. I don't agree with either of your two 'positions.' I don't think 'the scientists' "took what they could get," but then I also don't agree that they "would have preferred multiple locations." However I do agree that the final decision was up to Ballestrero, as advised by Gonella, and that that 'the scientists' were "basically happy" with that decision. So I agree with some points of both positions, and I disagree with others of both positions.

In the room, watching the cutting, were at least a dozen people. It is strange that none of them have published any clear memory of what happened.

 

[hugh farey]

How about your actual disagreement about the results of the dating? Does that not give you pause for thought?

I'm sure it does. In order to convince me I'm wrong, it is no longer sufficient to quote Benford, Marino and Rogers, or even Riani, as although I do not disagree with their findings regarding some contamination of some kind, I do disagree that there was sufficient, particularly after cleaning, to make a material difference to the carbon date, or that there is sufficient evidence that the contamination found on the carbon dating sample was very different from other contamination found elsewhere on the shroud.

Hi, Jabba.
Out of curiosity, what does it really matter, from what location the samples were taken?

Given what I have just said above, different approaches must be tried to convince me that the dating was wrong. One approach might be to convince me that after deciding the only accurate way of dating the shroud was to cut little pieces from all over, the scientists were forced to accept an inaccurate way of dating it by being given a piece that 'the church' knew was the most inappropriate possible. If I accepted that, and accepted that for publicity-seeking reasons the representatives of the three labs not only agreed to carbon date a piece they knew to be inadequate, but also maintained their dishonesty over the following 25 years, then the carbon date would be seriously compromised. As it happens I am not convinced of any syllable of any of the above scenario, but that's why the decision about the location of the sample can be seen as important.

 

[Dinwar]

In the room, watching the cutting, were at least a dozen people. It is strange that none of them have published any clear memory of what happened.

Not in the least. First, you have to consider the mundane nature of this sampling event. A bit of cloth was snipped off and put into metal foil. This is about as exciting as watching grass grow, provided nothing bad happens. If something DID go wrong it'd be memorable, but as long as everything went right it'd be just another tedious activity during a tedious day for all involved (trust me on that one--I've dealt with everything from wildlife to hunters to gangs to military practice while sampling, and it's ALWAYS the screwed up ones that you remember).

Science is often described as 99% mind-numbing tedium. This holds true for sampling events as well, of all kinds.

Second, you have to remember that the event was recorded. Nothing any of the scientists remember is going to trump what's on the video, and they know it (the problems with memory are widely known in the scientific community, which is why we write stuff down constantly). So rather than write a book that may be wrong, they'll just point you to the video.

If you REALLY want their recollections, find the bar they drink at and buy them a beer. They'll talk your ear off as long as it's informal.

As for the location, it's only relevant if there's sufficient contamination to alter the dating 1300 years (remember, for Jabba's argument to be true it has to date from the 1st century--ANY other date proves his argument wrong). That means there has to be more contamination than shroud. Since careful observations by three labs trained to differentiate between contamination and sample failed to produce such levels of contamination, and three different cleaning methods were used (which would have removed all concievable types of contamination), we can dismiss this idea.

 

[Akhenaten]

- If someone here can be respectful, I'll try to answer their questions and comments.

No you won't. You'll respond only to those in whose posts you see the faintest glimmer of agreement.

It's a lot easier, however, if only one person here is respectful.
--- Jabba

It's been more than a year and thousands of posts since you trashed and burnt any right to an expectation that your arguments might be treated with respect.

You want easy? Go and preach to other members of the Cult of the Shroud.

 

[hugh farey]

Second, you have to remember that the event was recorded. Nothing any of the scientists remember is going to trump what's on the video, and they know it (the problems with memory are widely known in the scientific community, which is why we write stuff down constantly). So rather than write a book that may be wrong, they'll just point you to the video.

Is it strange that the video has not been published, or even seen at all by anybody prepared to say what's on it?

 

[Akhenaten]

1.0 How that respect is to be shown
1.1 Abide by Jabba's wishes at all times by
1.1.1 Conforming to Jabba's preferred debating style
1.1.2 Not asking Jabba any difficult questions
1.1.2.1 Something else
1.1.3 Do not draw attention to Jabba's
1.1.3.1 Dishonesty
1.1.3.1.1 Etcetera
1.1.3.2 Evasion
1.1.3.2.1 Etcetrera
1.1.3.3 Record of same on
1.1.3.3.1 debating the dirty teatowel at
1.1.3.3.1.1 Believer sites
1.1.3.3.1.1.1 Something else
1.1.3.3.1.2 Other sceptics sites
1.1.3.3.2 Other topics
1.1.3.3.2.1 Here
1.1.3.3.2.2 Other websites
1.1.3.3.2.2.1 Bluuuurd
1.1.4 Do not point out that this "breakthrough in structured debate" is so tedious and disruptive to creative thought that only a true obsessive could could consider it anything other than than a distraction, at best.*



*apologies if someone has attempted the above previously, but I tend to skip over the form of such posts, without considering the words as I abhor the whole dishonest charade

No disrespect intended, but I thought your quite perceptive analysis needed just that little bit more.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hugh,
- I’m just trying to better understand our apparent disagreement re the extent to which the scientists were responsible for the number and location(s) of the sample(s).

No, you're not.

You're trying to create a controversy where none exists in the faint hope that it will distract everyone from your total inability to place any realistic doubt on the results of the C14 testing.

- So far, I’m thinking that the Church was basically responsible for the number and locations of the samples, and that the scientists basically just took what they could get.

Again, no you're not.

All you're trying to do is cast the method of sample selection as some kind of adversarial process, the better to make it fit with your courtroom drama scene/CSI:Jerusalem fantasy.

- I think that your position is that the scientists did have significant sway here – and maybe, that while the scientists would have preferred multiple locations, they were basically happy with just the one, and with where it was.

I think that your position is "scientists = eebil atheists" but as it happens neither my thoughts or yours are ever going to change the objective results that show the shroud to be a medieval artefact.

- How’s that?
--- Rich

Exactly the same as the stuff that you posted six months ago and which you'll post again tomorrow.

Keep trying the same thing over and over, Jabba.

Surely you'll get a different result one of these days, won't you?