Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[TimCallahan]

Here's the bottom line, Jabba:

Had the carbon 14 dating shown the samples taken to be from the first century, shroud proponents would have been trumpeting the findings to the skies. We'd have seen such headlines as "Science Proves Turin Shroud the Burial Shroud of Jesus." As is typical of purveyors of pseudoscience, when the shroud proponents didn't get the findings that supported their views, but rather findings that disproved their views, they began rationalizing the findings away and attacking the validity of carbon dating - and they haven't stopped.

This is the main reason I asked you several posts back if there was any pass / fail test the findings of which you would accept, should they give results indicating the Shroud of Turin was not the burial shroud of Jesus. As I recall, you were unable to answer that question.

Jabba, could you extend me the courtesy of answering the post quoted above?

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Flow Charts

And (to repeat from a while back, though it may be long enough ago that it will seem new to some), the other side of the argument:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=7420[/qimg]

Zoo,
- Akhenaten's Photoshop program is probably pretty expensive. Did you use something less expensive?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=free+flow-chart+template

 

[Akhenaten]

Zoo,
- Akhenaten's Photoshop program is probably pretty expensive. Did you use something less expensive?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Jab,

You seem to be completely missing the point that drawing little squares, diamonds and arrows is the sort of thing that an eight-year-old can do with MS Paint.

The real trick is coming up with a logical and coherent process on which to base the finished diagram.

Your posts during the last year or so display no indication whatsoever of your having developed such a process.

Or to put it another way, I could quite easily create a graphic representation of your post 9014 but it would look like a multi-coloured octopus in a blender.

Or to put it yet another way, before you start trying to think up clever ways of presenting your argument, you need to have an argument.​

 

[Sideroxylon]

Great imagery.

 

[GT/CS]

1. References to unnamed "experts" who supposedly were given pictures of the shroud sample area and allegedly said there were signs of reweaving.
Utterly worthless, third hand, hearsay.
2. Allegations that the sampled are was adjacent to a piece supposedly cut to sell, at some unspecified time.
Utterly worthless, third hand, hearsay.
3. Repetition of the Benford and Marino nonsense about a mix of first and sixteenth century material giving a fourteenth century date.
No calculations about the level of material necessary.
4. Benford claim that the radiocarbon dating results indicates some parts of the sample contained more (alleged) sixteenth century material than others.
No calculation to support this claim, contradicted by the sample preparation methodology and spouted by someone with no knowledge of radiocarbon dating and an agenda to push.

OK I have wasted two minutes watching this crap. It's nonsense.

If you have any points you'd like to make about the shroud and the radiocarbon dating of it, perhaps you would be so good as to make them? Rather than referring to youtube'd TV programmes and expecting others to wade through them in search of some point you might be trying to make.


Now I'm off to watch the effect of capsaicin applied to the genitals. Not unlike being made to read this thread I suspect.

I don't understand why you insist on being so incredibly rude. I'm a skeptic who watched a television program with data I questioned so I thought I'd go to the experts to find out the real truth.

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Map/Flow Chart

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=free+flow-chart+template

Maurice,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[catsmate]

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/AdobeSplash.jpg​

Personally I prefer Diagram Designer for flow charting and basic vector graphics, it's small, simple and free.

The Whangers?
Didn't we do the Whangers upthread?

Yes.

And Villareal?

Yes.

And Rogers?

Yes.

And Brown?

Yes.

And Raes?

Yes.

Meanwhile, I'll be in the breakfast nook.

Or even a breakfast Nook to read the latest shroudie books.


And FYI, it would appear that being forced to read this thread is not as bad as having capsaicin applied to the genitals.

 

[Mister Earl]

And FYI, it would appear that being forced to read this thread is not as bad as having capsaicin applied to the genitals.

So you did find that youtube video I recommended, then?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't understand why you insist on being so incredibly rude. I'm a skeptic who watched a television program with data I questioned so I thought I'd go to the experts to find out the real truth.

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

GT/CS:

With all due respect, the incredible disrespect and rudeness is Mr. Savage raising the same silly issues that have been raised, and dealt with, before (usually more than twice) in the thread, as if they were new evidence. As if subjective, qualitative kitchen chemistry performed once upon threads of dubious provenance--threads of which there are no more--is of equal probative value as the empirical quantitative analyses performed by three independent labs. As if the fact that the linen is a medieval artifact is the only hurdle--ignoring the anatomical inaccuracies, postural impossibilities, dimensional inadequacies, scriptural failures, and physical impossibilities of the byzantine-styled representational image upon the linen.

Mr. Savage began his "debate" with the conviction that the linen is, in fact, the True Shroud^TM and all of his arguments have only been seeking to affirm his conclusion.

The thread reads like a primer in logical fallacies and argumentation errors.

 

[John Jones]

-
Akhenaten,
- Thanks. Could you point me in a direction for trying to learn how to use that flow chart program?
--- Jabba

Don't do it, Akhenaten! Jabba will drag-out his failed thesis for two more years based on his inability to understand it.

 

[Dinwar]

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

He's really polite and helpful--right up to the point where you question his dogma. Than he accuses you of fraud, repeatedly and without evidence.

The issue is that in order for any study of the dating to be scientific, the study needs to include the math. It really is as simple as that. The math is how you find the amount of contamination necessary to get from the result you got to the result you think you should have gotten. Contamination does happen in C14 samples, quite frequently; I've dealt with it myself on a few occasions. But I was required to show the math demonstrating that the C14 contamination was sufficient to yield the results I was seeing. Without that, the "researchers" are just guessing--hardly a valid research technique.

 

[John Jones]

Zoo,
- Akhenaten's Photoshop program is probably pretty expensive. Did you use something less expensive?
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

There may be more pathetic attempts at debate than the above, but I can't recall any.

 

[John Jones]

I don't understand why you insist on being so incredibly rude. I'm a skeptic who watched a television program with data I questioned so I thought I'd go to the experts to find out the real truth.

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

Although he may be polite to you, Jabba has not been helpful to you. He is willfully ignorant of every hard fact regarding the shroud.

He has claimed that the scientists involved in the ¹⁴C dating are corrupt or incompetent.

Some of us are scientists more familiar with ¹⁴C dating than Jabba, and take umbrage at his scurrilous and reprehensible accusations.

So there it is.

 

[catsmate]

I don't understand why you insist on being so incredibly rude. I'm a skeptic who watched a television program with data I questioned so I thought I'd go to the experts to find out the real truth.

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

Sigh. I was *terse* because you posted a link, expected people to watch a video and extract some supposed points in favou of the shroud's authenticity (or at least contradicting the radiocarbon dating) from it rather than simply listing what you thought were valid points.

Further while you may characterise Jabba as "polite" he's also evasive, duplicitous and downright slanderous towards those holding contradictory views.

So you did find that youtube video I recommended, then?

That'd be well into the repeated jabbings with a cattle prod territory. I haven't tried capsaicin personally (and have no intention of doing so after this weekend's munch) but I do know what that feels like.

Don't do it, Akhenaten! Jabba will drag-out his failed thesis for two more years based on his inability to understand it.

Yeah I fear we may be unleasing another monster, or at least given Jabba an excuse to evade responding.

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Perceptions

Although he may be polite to you, Jabba has not been helpful to you. He is willfully ignorant of every hard fact regarding the shroud.

He has claimed that the scientists involved in the ¹⁴C dating are corrupt or incompetent.

Some of us are scientists more familiar with ¹⁴C dating than Jabba, and take umbrage at his scurrilous and reprehensible accusations.

So there it is.

-
GT/CS,
- This is a good example of how the others on this thread view my postings. Ask them to indicate the specific posts that they're referring to... I just don't perceive anything I've said as fitting their perception of it.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

I don't understand why you insist on being so incredibly rude. I'm a skeptic who watched a television program with data I questioned so I thought I'd go to the experts to find out the real truth.

You may be tired of people asking stupid questions but wouldn't you rather help someone looking for real answers than keep fighting with Jabba? He was actually more polite and helpful.

Actually, who were helpful were Tomboy, Dave Mo, hughfarey.
And also, of course, Dinwar, who explained why my question to you was so important.

He's really polite and helpful--right up to the point where you question his dogma. Than he accuses you of fraud, repeatedly and without evidence.

The issue is that in order for any study of the dating to be scientific, the study needs to include the math. It really is as simple as that. The math is how you find the amount of contamination necessary to get from the result you got to the result you think you should have gotten. Contamination does happen in C14 samples, quite frequently; I've dealt with it myself on a few occasions. But I was required to show the math demonstrating that the C14 contamination was sufficient to yield the results I was seeing. Without that, the "researchers" are just guessing--hardly a valid research technique.

...
Or even a breakfast Nook to read the latest shroudie books.


And FYI, it would appear that being forced to read this thread is not as bad as having capsaicin applied to the genitals.

Thanks but after after learned about the substances in question... I prefer the thread's version of a breakfast nook either to the Nook or to that alternative involving capsaicin.

 

[pakeha]

-
GT/CS,
- This is a good example of how the others on this thread view my postings. Ask them to indicate the specific posts that they're referring to... I just don't perceive anything I've said as fitting their perception of it.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Well, Jabba, how about explaining why you haven't been able to put the 're-weaving' canard to bed yet?
Remember the maths on the subject?
You even had a go at them yourself over a year ago!

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Giving Up?

Jabba, could you extend me the courtesy of answering the post quoted above?

-
Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

--- Jabba

 

[Akhenaten]

-
GT/CS,
- This is a good example of how the others on this thread view my postings. Ask them to indicate the specific posts that they're referring to... I just don't perceive anything I've said as fitting their perception of it.
- Thanks.
--- Jabba

Specific posts???

Your perceptions are askew.

And because I'm lazy, I'm just going to repost stuff from earlier in the cycle, just like you do.

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?

Further, for the sake of adding perspective to the currently-developing situation:

- 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.