hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
No; I'm thinking he probably used a glass pipette. What the great "Was the Body Washed?" controversy demonstrates best is that there probably wasn't a body at all, washed or unwashed.
Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud
- Thread starter X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating/Reweave
- Re 1.1. So far, I don’t have a good answer – and, this could be the smoking gun against the reweave theory. I assume that the different spool explanation of the bands is correct, but I need to ask some more “Shroudies” (I don’t mean this term derogatorily, it’s just the easiest way to refer to us people on the authenticity side of this argument.) if there is another explanation for the banding.
- Re 2.1. As far as I can tell, the Nature paper didn't say anything about "repair."
- Re 2.1.1. As far as I can tell, this is the closest they get to talking about "repair." I don't think that we have any indication that they were looking for repairs in general -- they seem to be referring to the obvious patches sewn over the shroud. In addition, to me, saying that the sample was taken from the “main body” of the shroud is a bit misleading…
- Re 2.1.2. I'm not sure when F-L wrote this, but other experts claim that there is something called “reversing” that would -- in fact -- hide the reweave on the back. In addition, prior to the dating, F-L assured the involved scientists that the shroud was the same from end to end -- when current evidence seems to prove that there has been some repair work done at least in the sample area. And then, as far as I can tell, no one knows what her examinations CONSISTED OF prior to the dating.
Re 2.1.3. Sure seems like they missed something.
Re 2.1.4. There have been doubts raised about this paper. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to track these down.
--- Jabba
Monza,
- Re 1.1. So far, I don’t have a good answer – and, this could be the smoking gun against the reweave theory. I assume that the different spool explanation of the bands is correct, but I need to ask some more “Shroudies” (I don’t mean this term derogatorily, it’s just the easiest way to refer to us people on the authenticity side of this argument.) if there is another explanation for the banding.
- Re 2.1. As far as I can tell, the Nature paper didn't say anything about "repair."
- Re 2.1.1. As far as I can tell, this is the closest they get to talking about "repair." I don't think that we have any indication that they were looking for repairs in general -- they seem to be referring to the obvious patches sewn over the shroud. In addition, to me, saying that the sample was taken from the “main body” of the shroud is a bit misleading…
- Re 2.1.2. I'm not sure when F-L wrote this, but other experts claim that there is something called “reversing” that would -- in fact -- hide the reweave on the back. In addition, prior to the dating, F-L assured the involved scientists that the shroud was the same from end to end -- when current evidence seems to prove that there has been some repair work done at least in the sample area. And then, as far as I can tell, no one knows what her examinations CONSISTED OF prior to the dating.
Re 2.1.3. Sure seems like they missed something.
Re 2.1.4. There have been doubts raised about this paper. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to track these down.
--- Jabba
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
There's more "smoking guns" here than there were at the battle of Waterloo.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
And you will not find one.
Go ahead, next year the question will remain unanswered.
Why should they? There was none.
No it isn't. Are you suggesting that "the main body of the shroud" has some other strange meaning to you? Would you be satisfied if a lump was carved from the centre of the shroud? Perhaps from the centre of jebus' forehead? I doubt it. Perhaps you should consider that there is no area of the shroud for which you would not object. Think about that.
Done to death in this thread. Stop clinging to this rubbish.
No, you wish they missed something. Not the same thing.
You won't. Your track record indicates you won't.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Was there some reason to bring up that particular tempest in a tea-cup, then?
Which experts were they who " claim that there is something called “reversing” that would -- in fact -- hide the reweave on the back."?
What is that current evidence that "seems to prove that there has been some repair work done at least in the sample area"?
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Hi Jabba,
My original post was in reply to your discussion at the time regarding direct and indirect evidence. I believe you had asked for each on the topic of whether there was a patch or not. The direct evidence is the natural banding that is not disturbed in any way through the sample site. As others have said, any sort of alteration would affect this banding; banding which is invisible to the naked eye.
The indirect evidence is basically summed up as... people with expertise in textiles looked for patches ("some patching") and could not find any evidence of such. To say, "Sure seems like they missed something" is disingenuous. What did they miss? Specifically? What evidence shows that something was missed?
At the time of my post I believe you were asked to provide direct and indirect evidence of a patch. My apologies if I missed it, but I have not seen you do so. To support your belief, it turns out that direct evidence would be the easiest to provide. That is, if there were a patch it would be easy to point to evidence of it. This would be shown as interruptions in the banding, distinctly different fibers woven into the cloth pattern, changes in the weave (perhaps only visible from one side) that show where outside fibers were attached to the main cloth fibers.
Do you have such evidence?
If there are different fibers in the sample area that were not present at the time the cloth was originally woven from the loom, it must be demonstrable. It simply has to be, in the world of reality. To say such fibers exist, but cannot be detected by any means (visually, under a microscope, by UV florescence, etc.) is akin to citing magic. If magic, why talk evidence at all?
Here it is. The dating of the samples at 1:20 is something I had never seen before, and if the dates are accurate I wonder why they are chronological.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kK08C7iEfU
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
How much more effort would it take to write your opinion on the dating of the samples?
You will refer us to 1:20 in a youtube, and expect us to do your interpretation for you?
Nein, danke.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for the video!
It has some footage of the sample taking which isn't always seen.
I'll go into it more tomorrow, but just a couple of questions.
Do you know know much material would be required to skew the 14C dating of those samples?
Who are the experts who claim to see signs of re-weaving in the samples?
David Mo
Philosopher
Some experts (if you like to call them so) have said he had seen repairs or patches in the Shroud. For example: Louise Harner of the Albany International Research Company; David Pearson owner of French Tailors in Columbus, Ohio. (“EVIDENCE FOR THE SKEWING OF THE C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN DUE TO REPAIRS” BY JOSEPH G. MARINO AND M. SUE BENFORD (2000) (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf )). Robert Buden, President of Tapestries & Treasures. (“Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin” by Joseph G. Marino and Edwin J. Prior (2008). (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf )). Other testimonies as Mr. Campbell are more elusive.
But sindonists have a problem: these experts just saw photos and said the repair was easily visible (not invisible at all!). But directly work with the Shroud by experts using microscope methods had irrefutably shown that no mending (visible nor invisible) was done in the zone.
This would have ended any discussion about invisible mending if we were in a scientific debate. But we are in sindonology, an amazing science.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Hi GT/CS. Your inquiry is particularly interesting to me, as I find myself using exactly the same data which, about 50 pages back, led me to believe in the 'invisible reweave' hypothesis, but which I now think fails conclusively to do so.
However, the position is not a clear cut as some commentators here declare, and, as I have said many times before, the observations of anomalies are often accurate and valid. It is their interpretation which fails.
Benford and Marino noticed two statistical anomalies, namely that the three dates provided by the three labs were very different, and that they were in chronological order across the samples. The 'Nature' paper announcing the carbon dating age (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm) acknowledged the first, showing in Table 2 that there was only a 5% chance of obtaining such a variable set of results from three similar samples. Nevertheless, since there was no question (at that time) that the samples were, in fact, different, the matter was allowed to stand. It will be discussed further in a minute. The second anomaly, that the three samples were in chronological order, can be dismissed on the grounds that there are only six ways of listing three numbers, and two of them are in order (backwards or forwards), and something that happens with a probability of 1/3 is hardly anomalous at at all.
In fact, course, there were not three dates achieved, but twelve (4 from Tucson, 3 from Oxford and 3 from 5 from Zurich). although the order of each laboratory's total sample was known, the order within each lab was not. If they had each sliced their sample vertically, the possible number of ways in which the dates could be ordered would be 17280. If this was indeed the way the samples were cut up, and the dates for each were known, and they were chronological, the case for contamination would be irrefutable. However, how the samples were cut up was not known (vertical, horizontal or a mixture), and which dates referred to which sample was not known, so that there are some 400 000 possible configurations of the 12 numbers in two dimensions. Nevertheless, with the information available, Riani and Atkinson set to work on regression statistics and did indeed demonstrate a significant likelihood of chronological progression along the dating sample. They did not speculate on the cause of this chronological progression, nor what it might mean in terms of the date of the shroud, nor the proportion of contamination required to change one date into another.
So far, so good for the 'invisible weavers,' and the speculations of the three Textile Analysis companies to whom Benford and Marino sent photographs. Although these companies' analyses are described as 'blinded' by Benford and Marino, we are not told what they were actually asked, or what they actually replied in response.
The bottom line, for me, comes with the proportion of contaminant required to change a 1st century date into a 14th century one, and here, I think, Benford and Marino are guilty of serious misrepresentation. This is a serious charge, so I will quote their words (from http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf).
"According to Ronald Hatfield, a scientist at Beta Analytic, the world's largest radiocarbon dating service, a merging of threads from AD 1500 into a 2,000 year old piece of linen would augment the C-14 content, such that a 60/40 ratio of new material to old, determined by mass, would result in a C-14 age of approximately AD 2010." This is demonstrably untrue, as Harry Gove pointed out. His criticism was replied to in http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf. Firstly "16th century" and "1st century" were defined as the years AD 1500 and AD 75 respectively, which seems odd if the shroud were supposed to date from before the death of Christ. Each date was then converted to a "measured conventional BP equivalent" of 360 BP and 1940 BP respectively, and then to a "fraction modern value," which I take to be the proportion of C-14 remaining in a sample of that date. The final proportions are 67/33. What I find staggering is the comment "the percent variability between these percentages and the original claim of 60/40 is within an accepted margin of 10%." If this is meant to mean that proportions of 51/49 and 69/31 are acceptable variations on 60/40, then I consider the whole argument downright dishonest.
This is all important. Even by their own calculations, almost 70% needs to be contaminant even to give the oldest of the radiocarbon ratings. To get the youngest it needs to be nearly 90%. The diagram shown by Benford and Marino (Figure 3 at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf) wholly misrepresents this, as surely they knew at the time.
Finally, two photographs can be usefully compared, and even lined up side by side. The first is the Zurich sample (apparently intact), which is Figure 6 of http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf; and the second is about half of the bigger Tucson sample, which was retained, Figure 2 (bottom) at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/arizona.pdf. With a bit of rotating they line up quite well, and the supposed new threads can be examined closely in the Tucson sample. I can only say they look OK to me...
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for your analysis, hugh.
Bookmarked.
Amazing, indeed, Dave Mo.
Thanks for the names of the experts and their opinions of photos.
I'd have thought the undisturbed banding would have put paid to any doubts about the suitability of the samples taken.
That said, the Discovery show was slick and would have prolly convinced me that jiggery pokery was afoot, until they actually mentioned Rogers' work.
Bookmarked.
Amazing, indeed, Dave Mo.
Thanks for the names of the experts and their opinions of photos.
I'd have thought the undisturbed banding would have put paid to any doubts about the suitability of the samples taken.
That said, the Discovery show was slick and would have prolly convinced me that jiggery pokery was afoot, until they actually mentioned Rogers' work.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
-
David,
- But then there's also Rogers, Raes, Brown, Villarreal, the Whangers and Hall who claim to have found some sort of anomaly (ies) -- and evidence for repair -- in the sample area. If you insist, I'll try to provide links to all of these, but you probably have them already.
--- Jabba
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating
- I accidentally posted this before ready, so I'll rush to add stuff...
- This is just the beginning of trying to map our discussion. It will need all sorts of additions and fleshing out.
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
- Below, I am "1-." You guys are "2-."
- If you don't like my representation of your side, let me know.
1-1. Reasons why authentic
2-1. Shroud, simply, is NOT authentic
2-1.1. Evidence for is essentially RUBBISH
2-1.2. Carbon dating
2-1.2.1. Ends reasonable debate,
2-1.2.2. Shroudies must PROVE it’s wrong.
1-2. Don’t need proof
1-3. Need preponderance of evidence
2-2. This isn’t a court
1-4. I disagree, but whatever
1-4.1. Two kinds of evidence
1-4.1.1. Direct
1-4.1.2. Indirect
2-3. Don’t bother with indirect – it’s of no consequence.
1-5. Think indirect important, but OK
1-6. Two kinds of Direct evidence also
1-6.1. Preemptive strikes against
1-6.2. Potential problems
1-6.2.1. Sample not representative
1-6.2.1.1. Contaminated?
1-6.2.1.2. Reweave?
1-6.2.2. Something happened to entire shroud
1-6.2.3. Incompetence
1-6.2.4. Conscious chicanery
1-6.2.5. Subconscious chicanery
- I accidentally posted this before ready, so I'll rush to add stuff...
- This is just the beginning of trying to map our discussion. It will need all sorts of additions and fleshing out.
- I don't like the numbering either, but don't know how to put it into a flow chart on this blog. Is that possible? I guess I could do it in pencil on a sheet of paper, take a picture of it and place the image in a post? Any suggestions?
- Below, I am "1-." You guys are "2-."
- If you don't like my representation of your side, let me know.
1-1. Reasons why authentic
2-1. Shroud, simply, is NOT authentic
2-1.1. Evidence for is essentially RUBBISH
2-1.2. Carbon dating
2-1.2.1. Ends reasonable debate,
2-1.2.2. Shroudies must PROVE it’s wrong.
1-2. Don’t need proof
1-3. Need preponderance of evidence
2-2. This isn’t a court
1-4. I disagree, but whatever
1-4.1. Two kinds of evidence
1-4.1.1. Direct
1-4.1.2. Indirect
2-3. Don’t bother with indirect – it’s of no consequence.
1-5. Think indirect important, but OK
1-6. Two kinds of Direct evidence also
1-6.1. Preemptive strikes against
1-6.2. Potential problems
1-6.2.1. Sample not representative
1-6.2.1.1. Contaminated?
1-6.2.1.2. Reweave?
1-6.2.2. Something happened to entire shroud
1-6.2.3. Incompetence
1-6.2.4. Conscious chicanery
1-6.2.5. Subconscious chicanery
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Links to claims of people having evidence of anomolies are still as useless as they've always been.
Some links to actual evidence, on the other hand, would be quite an eye opener.
Any chance of posting those?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You could take a year and it would still be nonsense.
In fact, You have taken a year . . .
It needs taking out the back and shooting.
Do you even know where it is that you're posting this rubbish?
Yes. Make it nice and big.
I have a feeling that a number of us are going to want to print it out and frame it, the better to share with our friends in real life.
I doubt that there's a more ridiculous method of indicating who said what but if there is I have no doubt that you'll eventually stumble upon it.
Why? You'll just ignore it like you do everything else.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating/Reweave
- Just wanted to make sure that you have seen their "work" and are discounting it.
--- Jabba
Akhenaten,
- Just wanted to make sure that you have seen their "work" and are discounting it.
--- Jabba
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
That is all you needed to say and it says everything.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
No. I've only "just" joined the "thread" and am ""completely" "oblivious"" to "everything" that's been "posted" so """"far"""".
- Status