Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Slowvehicle]

-
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

Mr. Savage:

You have repeatedly said that "bias" is the reason that 3 independent labs, performing 3 independent protocols, all came up with the "wrong" date. No matter how you try to soft-pedal it, that is a charge of incompetence--a level of incompetence that would end a career.

You have repeatedly claimed that fabric experts, who have actually had access to study the linen, "must have missed" an "invisible repair" (or "some patching"), when the site of the testing samples was chosen because it shows no sign of any such. (and, in fact, you have ignored evidence that demonstrates that the sample area is undisturbed, at the very structural level.

You have pretended that your strong desire that the linen be the True Shroud^TM lets you doubt the ¹⁴C dating, even though you do not understand the process.

You have cast aspersions upon the provenance of the samples that were dated, while at the same time accepting without question subjective, qualitative tests performed on disaggregated threads of questionable provenance.

You have completely ignored the fact that the ¹⁴C dating is only one of the barrier to accepting the linen as the True Shroud^TM.

You have continually asked for, and insisted upon, and tried to impose, a style of debate upon the thread, ignoring the idea that the point of a "debate" is to "win", whether on not the position you are "debating" is true or correct.

You continue to claim that reasonable people can "agree to disagree" about factual reality.

Please notice that I am not being rude, or uncivil, or by any means personally attacking you. As I, and others, have pointed out to you, repeatedly, the problem with your arguments, in fact, your approach to the subject in general, is that you began with a smooth slab of granite, and, at the bottom, chiseled the phrase, "Therefore the Shroud is Genuine". Having assumed your consequent, you feel the issue is resolved.

I do not wish to engage in acrimony; I do not wish to descend to the level of personal comments encountered on other sites. What I do wish is that you would focus on the wealth of information you have been offered; the papers and articles you have been sent; the thread searches that have been done for you; the repeated, patient, explanations and corrections; and focus upon those as normative, instead of acting the aggrieved party because you choose to misinterpret styles of personal address, or because people get impatient with the multiple times you bring up the same claims, the same "authorities", the same arguments as if they were new ground being plowed for the first time.

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Perceptions

Slowvehicle,
- Provide specific posts in which I've done what you claim.
--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

... 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. ...

The thing is, you have no opponents here.
None.
Slowvehicle said it well

...What I do wish is that you would focus on the wealth of information you have been offered; the papers and articles you have been sent; the thread searches that have been done for you; the repeated, patient, explanations and corrections; and focus upon those as normative, instead of acting the aggrieved party because you choose to misinterpret styles of personal address, or because people get impatient with the multiple times you bring up the same claims, the same "authorities", the same arguments as if they were new ground being plowed for the first time.

 

[Garrette]

-
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

I doubt that your father meant "Never Give Up" even when truth is against you. I presume that he assumed you would have right on your side; in this instance, you do not.

I am also struck by your repeated comment that you are "the best man" here.

"Best" how?

By depth of knowledge on the subject? You have been shown repeatedly not to grasp even the basics.

By ability to synthesize the research? You have been shown repeatedly to be unable to organize even the most rudimentary data retrieval.

By presentation of objective fact? Nearly 100% of your sources have been shown to rely on second or third hand conjecture topped with a great serving of subjectivity whereas the opposition has relied entirely on objective evidence.

By ability to perform the necessary calculations? You spent months refusing even to attempt the most basic maths fundamental to your hypothesis; when it was repeatedly done for you, and the answers shown to contradict your hypothesis, you ignore it.

I honestly do not see any criteria by which your claim can stand.

Most importantly, it doesn't matter. The question is not about the quality of the arguer but rather about the quality of the argument. Nothing you have presented has withstood scrutiny. Nothing. On the other hand, the evidence for forgery has withstood years of scrutiny and towers still above all the claims for authenticity.

It is this, Jabba, that is the true mark of incivility. You ignore evidence, you repeatedly throw rebutted papers back into the mix, you toss out thinly disguised claims of incompetence, conspiracy, and subjectivity without the slightest hint of evidence, and then you claim that you are "the best man."

I will take the honest rudeness of a correct man over the slick tongued civility of a willfully wrong man any day and trust that in the end the scales of civility will tip toward fact.

 

[Akhenaten]

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...

You've not even made a perfunctory effort to learn how to quote properly, let alone attempt an objective analysis of the last year's worth of discussion.

The reason you don't "understand" what's wrong with your answers is that you either:

1. refuse point blank to acknowledge the posts pointing out the errors in them; or
   
   
2. acknowledge, and in in some case even accept, counter-arguments only to later pretend that those rebuttals never occurred, virtually resetting the discussion on a whim to some earlier point in time at which you believed yourself to be making headway.

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached).

This absurd view of the way this discussion has progressed is a major part of the train-smashy goodness that has kept people interested, Jabba.

It's not a good look, despite your personal vision of being the lone crusader against a horde of disbelieving heretics.

But then, my Dad told me to "never give up"

So did Xerxes' dad.

And we all know how that ended.

Again . . . not a good look.​

-- 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 did Xerxes, but the tide came in anyway.

Go figure.

- 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...

Are we supposed to not notice this febrile attempt to ignore the 1000-strong herd of 10-metre-tall elephants with "C14" painted on their sides in various shades of day-glo that are charging about the room?

- 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

Accroche toi a ton reve.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- Provide specific posts in which I've done what you claim.
--- Jabba

Here's two, nearly at random, on just two issues. Respond to these, and we'll go on.

1. Bias. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9332825#post9332825

2.Missed "patching". http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9183056#post9183056

 

[tsig]

-
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

Your only "opponent" is science. C¹⁴

 

[Agatha]

-
Tim,

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

Post 8530 - show that the so called "serum clot retraction rings" could be formed without contact with an actual bleeding wound, and Jabba's enthusiasm for a 1st century date will be "significantly tarnished".
Post 8770 - show that the stains aren't blood, and Jabba will cease to argue for a 1st century date.

Since both these conditions have been satisfied several times in the thread but yet you continue to bring these matter up as if they had not, forgive me if I fear that you will either move the goalposts to another so-called anomaly, or you will ignore the science and the research only to bring up blood and SCCR at a later date.

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached).

Jabba, this is not a fight and nobody here is your enemy. This is simply an explanation of facts and research, some of which is challenging to your pre-conceived notions.

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...

Did your father mean never give up even if you are wrong? If so, while I hate to criticise another person's relatives, that was not a good or helpful thing for him to have taught you. Not giving up when one has the facts, or morality, or justice on one's side is laudable. Not giving up when one is plain wrong or misinformed is a terrible thing.

Again, this is not a fight. A debate on opinion might be seen as a fight, though it's a bit of a childish way of looking at adult debate, but a discussion on scientific fact is no more of a 'fight' or 'controversy' than it would be if we were having a discussion with someone propounding geocentrism. There's no fight involved, they are simply wrong.

- 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...

Excellent! Read the thread and you'll find that the composition of the stains on the shroud have been extensively tested and found not to be blood, but to be pigments mixed with organic materials such as egg white, as was common in the 13th/14th centuries. Welcome to reality, how does it feel to shake off a delusional belief after all these years?

- 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...

So - you can be utterly convinced of something, but then you find that the facts are not as you had believed. That is a remarkably good metaphor for this thread.

You were convinced that something was lost in your house (you were convinced that the shroud was 1st century)
....but then in fact it turned out that you were wrong because...
the item was in your house all along as demonstrated by the evidence of you seeing it (the shroud is a mediaeval production as demonstrated by the facts)

You might want to think about that a little more.

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.

You DO only have one opponent. REALITY is your only opponent.

Nobody here is your opponent, all we are doing is demonstrating the facts for you. This is a very important concept for you to understand. Facts do not become more or less true if only one person presents them - nor if seven billion people present them. Reality does not change according to the debating skills of the advocates, which is why (as we keep reminding you) the kind of courtroom debate you envisage where the skill of the arguer can sway people from one opinion to another is not suited to discussions of factual matters, only to discussions of opinions.

 

[abaddon]

-
Tim,

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

What? 8530 is all about serum clot retraction tings, which you now claim you withdraw and 8770 is simply a restatement of 8530.

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached).

As others have stated, it is not a fight. You simply want it to be a fight since that suits your purposes of declaring a world wide controversy exists.

But then, my Dad told me to "never give up"

Did he add "even if you are wrong"?

-- 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...

You have simply allowed your stuborness to overcome your critical faculities.

- 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)

There is one of your problems, you concede those points, but state out front that you will at some point reopen then. That is called a fringe reset. If you do reopen them, the arguments and evidence will simply be presented again. You will concede again. You will reopen them again. You seem to be of the belief that facts will simply go away if you wait long enough.

-- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...

A. It's been done, and
B. Even if they were blood stains it does not help your case in any way.

- 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...

Your anecdotes fail to impress. Particularly when you have already admitted on this thread that your memory is not what it was.

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

And that is your hope and last resort. Isolate one individual and bash him/her into concession. The cult of scientology does that.

 

[Jabba]

Debate/Perceptions

Here's two, nearly at random, on just two issues. Respond to these, and we'll go on.
1. Bias. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9332825#post9332825
2.Missed "patching". http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9183056#post9183056

Slowvehicle,

- This is the first.

carlitos:
Anyhoo, Jabba? Were the scientists biased, incompetent, or was there a conspiracy? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jabba:
Carlitos,
- I do suspect that the leaders were biased.
- I do not suspect that they were incompetent.
- I do not suspect any conspiracy.
- I do suspect, however, that the leaders let their biases affect their judgment.

- Your claim referring to that post:
You have repeatedly said that "bias" is the reason that 3 independent labs, performing 3 independent protocols, all came up with the "wrong" date. No matter how you try to soft-pedal it, that is a charge of incompetence--a level of incompetence that would end a career.


- Slowvehicle, I was simply answering carlitos' questions. I told him what I suspected. I was not "charging" anybody with anything. And finally, I don't even suspect "incompetence." I do suspect bias (and lots of it, actually) -- would you have me lie to carlitos, or simply not answer his question?
- And, keep in mind that we are all biased -- some more than others.


- Here's the other one.

Jabba:
- So anyway, I’ve been trying to show potential weakness in the carbon dating process.
- Most recently, I’ve been trying to show why we shouldn’t yet dismiss the possibility of a near-invisible patch. I believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility, in that 1) they appear to show significant evidence missed by the people responsible for the dating, and 2) the something missed, according to these papers, was evidence of patching.
- You guys do not believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility.
- For now, I'm happy to leave that as a clear point of disagreement between us. In other words, my case for a semi-invisible patch is, at least momentarily, closed.
- But then, a near-invisible patch is only one of the possible explanations for that late date...


Your claim re that post:
You have repeatedly claimed that fabric experts, who have actually had access to study the linen, "must have missed" an "invisible repair" (or "some patching"), when the site of the testing samples was chosen because it shows no sign of any such. (and, in fact, you have ignored evidence that demonstrates that the sample area is undisturbed, at the very structural level.

- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

--- Jabba

 

[pakeha]

...- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. ...

Could you please explain why that's your opinion, given the state of the banding in that area?

 

[Sideroxylon]

You suspect bias but you cannot demonstrate it. Wishful thinking.

 

[abaddon]

Slowvehicle,

- This is the first.

carlitos:
Anyhoo, Jabba? Were the scientists biased, incompetent, or was there a conspiracy? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jabba:
Carlitos,
- I do suspect that the leaders were biased.
- I do not suspect that they were incompetent.
- I do not suspect any conspiracy.
- I do suspect, however, that the leaders let their biases affect their judgment.

So you don't believe they were biased, but they were biased.

- Your claim referring to that post:
You have repeatedly said that "bias" is the reason that 3 independent labs, performing 3 independent protocols, all came up with the "wrong" date. No matter how you try to soft-pedal it, that is a charge of incompetence--a level of incompetence that would end a career.

No answer to this. I wonder why?

- Slowvehicle, I was simply answering carlitos' questions. I told him what I suspected. I was not "charging" anybody with anything. And finally, I don't even suspect "incompetence." I do suspect bias (and lots of it, actually) -- would you have me lie to carlitos, or simply not answer his question?

No. Evidence would be quite a change of pace.

- And, keep in mind that we are all biased -- some more than others.

Wow.

- Here's the other one.

Jabba:
- So anyway, I’ve been trying to show potential weakness in the carbon dating process.
- Most recently, I’ve been trying to show why we shouldn’t yet dismiss the possibility of a near-invisible patch. I believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility, in that 1) they appear to show significant evidence missed by the people responsible for the dating, and 2) the something missed, according to these papers, was evidence of patching.

Back to invisible patches. Now is this different from invisible unicorns?

- You guys do not believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility.
- For now, I'm happy to leave that as a clear point of disagreement between us. In other words, my case for a semi-invisible patch is, at least momentarily, closed.
- But then, a near-invisible patch is only one of the possible explanations for that late date...

Bollocks. You have been handed that evidence on a plate.

Your claim re that post:
You have repeatedly claimed that fabric experts, who have actually had access to study the linen, "must have missed" an "invisible repair" (or "some patching"), when the site of the testing samples was chosen because it shows no sign of any such. (and, in fact, you have ignored evidence that demonstrates that the sample area is undisturbed, at the very structural level.

And?

- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

--- Jabba

Yet you are unable to identify what may have been missed. All you are able to do is make stuff up.

 

[wollery]

The trouble with your supposition that the date is wrong because the lead scientists were biased is that the results of the tests are objective.

Let me explain, in simple terms:-

A technician takes the cloth and puts it in a machine that incinerates it and reduces it to its constituent atoms (roughly speaking). The technician takes this container of atoms and places it in another machine that measures the masses and types of atoms in the sample. The numbers are spit out by a computer and a different technician calculates how old the sample is based on the ratios of the C¹⁴ and C¹².

Please explain how a bias by the lead scientist affects this result.

The answer is that it can't. The only way to alter the result is to add extra cloth of the wrong date, mess with the machine, reprogram the computer or intentionally fiddle the maths. All of these require concious intentional acts on the parts of the scientists. At three separate labs. Giving the same date.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

Jabba:
Carlitos,
- I do suspect that the leaders were biased.
- I do not suspect that they were incompetent.
- I do not suspect any conspiracy.
- I do suspect, however, that the leaders let their biases affect their judgment.

--snip--

- Slowvehicle, I was simply answering carlitos' questions. I told him what I suspected. I was not "charging" anybody with anything. And finally, I don't even suspect "incompetence." I do suspect bias (and lots of it, actually) -- would you have me lie to carlitos, or simply not answer his question?
- And, keep in mind that we are all biased -- some more than others.

I'm with Abaddon on this. You charge bias but without the guts to claim that you're charging bias. It is false civility.

Allow me to quote myself:

I will take the honest rudeness of a correct man over the slick tongued civility of a willfully wrong man any day and trust that in the end the scales of civility will tip toward fact.

 

[HighRiser]

(Snipped for brevity)

- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

--- Jabba

I would like you to explain why you hold this opinion, please. Why you continue to argue that baseless assumptions about textile experts missing reweaving or repairs should be taken seriously.

Linen cloth is made of interwoven threads. Reweaving requires doubling of threads. Doubling of threads is bloody obvious because it unavoidably distorts the pattering of the weave AND unavoidably leaves little tails of the repair threads sticking out of the back side. Not to mention the uninterrupted, invisible to the naked eye, and unknown until the present day, banding that exists in the cloth as an artifact of its manufacture.

How could a trained textile expert, who was so respected in her field that she was asked by the Vatican's representatives to examine the shroud, miss something so obvious?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things . . .

But you can't tell us what those things are, or why they're obvious to you and you alone.

. . .and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did.

It's because we don't suffer from a pathological need to believe things that are totally unsupported by the evidence.

And it's not that you don't understand this, it's simply the case that you won't.

Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

--- Jabba

It doesn't really rise to the level of being an opinion. It's a fantasy on which you've built a personal version of a primitive religious belief.

 

[Agatha]

Slowvehicle,

- This is the first.

carlitos:
Anyhoo, Jabba? Were the scientists biased, incompetent, or was there a conspiracy? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jabba:
Carlitos,
- I do suspect that the leaders were biased.
- I do not suspect that they were incompetent.
- I do not suspect any conspiracy.
- I do suspect, however, that the leaders let their biases affect their judgment.

You have not said who these 'leaders' were, nor how they were biased, nor how such bias "affecting their judgement" (which is accusing them of either incompetence or downright fraud) could make an objective process where a machine just spits out numbers into something which could give an inaccurate result.

If you are going to level charges of bias against unnamed people, the least you could do is to explain how their bias could affect the carbon dating process.

- Your claim referring to that post:
You have repeatedly said that "bias" is the reason that 3 independent labs, performing 3 independent protocols, all came up with the "wrong" date. No matter how you try to soft-pedal it, that is a charge of incompetence--a level of incompetence that would end a career.


- Slowvehicle, I was simply answering carlitos' questions. I told him what I suspected. I was not "charging" anybody with anything. And finally, I don't even suspect "incompetence." I do suspect bias (and lots of it, actually) -- would you have me lie to carlitos, or simply not answer his question?
- And, keep in mind that we are all biased -- some more than others.

Which is why we use the scientific method, so that any bias is controlled for. That includes any bias towards a 1st century date as well as any bias against it.

I think you may be falling into the trap of assuming that all scientists must be atheists, and also that all atheists/sceptics are biased towards a mediaeval date. Neither of these things is true. Several of the scientists involved in the carbon dating processes were Christians, and what sceptics are biased towards is evidence, no matter that leads to. I have been an atheist from birth and I would have no problem accepting a 1st century date IF the evidence suggested that was the case.

Think this through. You accuse some 'leaders' of bias, and claim that you suspect that their bias has made them come up with an inaccurate date. Unless you propose that a scientist's views (and it's important to note that several of these particular scientists were Christians) can in some way affect a machine's output in a hitherto unsuspected and paranormal way, then the only way bias could affect the carbon dating in three independent laboratories (one of which introduced a blinding step) is if the scientists in question either:
a) conspired to fraudulently suppress the real results and reported an inaccurate date, or conspired to fraudulently add extraneous new material to the sample
or
b) were so incompetent that they could not operate the machines correctly

There are no other ways that 'bias' could affect what is a process of calculation. You claim you are not accusing them of conspiracy or incompetence, but you fail to explain how 'bias' could affect the results. You have also not shown any evidence that there was bias, either towards or against a 1st century or 14th century date, on the part of any of the scientists involved.

If you must rely on 'bias' as your explanation for three independent laboratories (who reported their results to the British Museum, not to each other) for reporting an inaccurate date, you must explain how such bias affected the dating.

Which step(s) of the carbon dating process involve judgement on the part of those carrying out the process? How would 'bias' affect that judgement?

ETA Wollery has given you a simplified explanation of the process. Where does the judgement come in? Please explain your thinking here, Jabba.

- Here's the other one.

Jabba:
- So anyway, I’ve been trying to show potential weakness in the carbon dating process.
- Most recently, I’ve been trying to show why we shouldn’t yet dismiss the possibility of a near-invisible patch. I believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility, in that 1) they appear to show significant evidence missed by the people responsible for the dating, and 2) the something missed, according to these papers, was evidence of patching.
- You guys do not believe that the papers I’ve referenced do, in fact, preclude an out-of-hand dismissal of that possibility.
- For now, I'm happy to leave that as a clear point of disagreement between us. In other words, my case for a semi-invisible patch is, at least momentarily, closed.
- But then, a near-invisible patch is only one of the possible explanations for that late date...


Your claim re that post:
You have repeatedly claimed that fabric experts, who have actually had access to study the linen, "must have missed" an "invisible repair" (or "some patching"), when the site of the testing samples was chosen because it shows no sign of any such. (and, in fact, you have ignored evidence that demonstrates that the sample area is undisturbed, at the very structural level.

- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

Given the linen banding, which you have been shown several times, it simply is not possible for there to have been any patching/repair/reweaving in the sampled area. The banding is an artefact of the weaving process, it is invisible to the naked eye and continues uninterrupted through the sampled area.

The only evidence you have provided in support of your contention that all those textile experts, scientists and members of the Catholic church who inspected the shroud "obviously" missed some things is that you really, really want them to have missed something. I hate to tell you this, but a person's desires are not evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion, and to express it, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts stand by themselves - there is no patching/repair/reweaving in that area.

 

[Dinwar]

-
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

You have repeatedly stated that you believe the scientists conducting the C14 dating committed unspeciffied errors based on their desire for the shroud to be a Medieval artifact. This is an accusation of incompetance, at minimum. Other posts on your part went well into accusations of fraud. Just because you don't use the words "incompetance" or "fraud" doesn't mean that's not what you're talking about.

If you want to accuse people of incompetance, that's fine. Provide evidence. You've completely failed to do so after more than a year. If this were a court case, you'd have been held in contempt 11 months ago or more.

Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

I want you to DEFEND your opinion. Opinions without support are meaningless.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for space>

- Slowvehicle, I was simply answering carlitos' questions. I told him what I suspected. I was not "charging" anybody with anything. And finally, I don't even suspect "incompetence." I do suspect bias (and lots of it, actually) -- would you have me lie to carlitos, or simply not answer his question?
- And, keep in mind that we are all biased -- some more than others.

So you "suspect" that the labs that determined that the linen fibers in the medieval artifact were grown and harvested in the mid-thirteenth century determined that date because they were biased, but you are not "accusing" them of incompetence or dishonesty?

What else would you consider lying about the results of the test, or ignoring the results of the test because it did not provide the date you WANT?

What else would you consider letting your strong desire, even your fixated need, for a date lead you to ignore, distort, misrepresent, or gloss over, the "real" results of the test?

Unless and until you demonstrate HOW the tests failed, HOW bias led to the "wrong" date, HOW kitchen chemistry and supposition trumps objective quantitative tests, it is disingenuous of you to pretend that your constant harping on "bias" is not an accusation.

I will put it to you plainly:

Do you, Mr. Sanders, believe that three different labs actually tested the medieval artifact as first century cloth, but allowed that result to be concealed, lied about, and/or altered?

I would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer to that question.

<space snip>
- I still seems obvious to me that they did miss some things, and I don't understand why you guys don't, at least, suspect that they did. Again, would you have me not express my opinion...?

--- Jabba

Mr. Savage:

-You continue to ignore the evidence that the weave of the linen in the tested corner has been undisturbed since STuRP took its photos in 1978.
-You continue to ignore the amount of egregious material that would be needed for first century linen to register as mid-thirteenth century linen.
You continue to ignore the question of who wrought the indetectable patching, and when, and for what reasons, and why (out of all the places on the cloth that could stand repair) that isolated corner was chosen.

The fact that you presuppose a specific date for the linen, a date unsupported by any evidence, does NOT mean that it is reasonable of you to posit undetectable, invisible, un-noticeable patching as a rescue for your discredited date.

Yes, I am interested in your opinion. I am not particularly interested in reading your repeated posts that your opinion is more factually correct than practical, objective, empirical evidence.

Yes, you have a right to believe what you choose. That does NOT give you leave to imply that anyone who does not share your belief is biased, incompetent, or participating in a secret cover-up.

No, your self-serving responses do NOT indicate that you have not been repeatedly accusing scientists of bias (and its handmaidens, dishonesty and incompetence).

Yes, it is disrespectful of you to continue to pretend so in the face of evidence...