Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Belz...]

Hans,
- How about if I can establish reasonable doubt with the C14 evidence?

You can't. It's the single most rigorous C14 testing ever made, and you simply don't have what it takes to dispute it, aside from slander.

Stop it.

 

[Belz...]

- The following list is something I provided previously. Which specific claim would you like me to address first?

None. All of those have been addressed. You have failed to provide evidence for authenticity, and failed to dispute fraud.

1. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.

Meaningless twaddle.

2. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.

Lie.

3. The size and location of the sample.

...which was sufficient.

4. Potential of repair, contamination and “new” linen.

Addressed ad nauseam.

5. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.

Seems you trust your religion even less than science.

6. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.

Irrelevant.

7. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.

Irrelevant.

8. No test for chemical composition.

Lie.

9. No archeologist involved.

Irrelevant.

10. STURP deliberately excluded.

Irrelevant.

11. Gove eventually excluded.

Irrelevant.

12. A clear age gradient within the sample.

Yeah. Very clear: medieval.

 

[Belz...]

- They have all been addressed -- but, not resolved.

You are confusing your unwillingness to accept the conclusions with them not being resolved.

 

[Belz...]

- OK. I'll start with the first one.

And round and round we go. Where we'll stop, nobody knows!

Give up, Jabba. All of this has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction except yours. Your lack of satisfaction is readily explained by your wish that the Shroud be real. There is nothing further to discuss.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

[party pooper] I feel shouting at Jabba to go away is uncalled for. If he wants to spew his nonsense ad vitam aeternam, so be it. Responding, imso, is a personal choice. [/party pooper]

 

[Craig4]

The full sentence, on page 106 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth', is "The dating of the shroud remains controversial, but not for reasons that cast doubt on the carbon-dating technique itself."

Shameless quote mining

Oh, we know, asking the question is a way to taunt him to see if he has the courage to post it.

 

[John Jones]

I'll be back.

 

[Craig4]

- snip
9. No archeologist involved.
snip[/I]

What the hell is this? Why is this here? Your error has been explained to you on this point many times. Why did you include this? Are you a two-year-old with your fingers in your ears not listening to what people say? What is it an archeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating? Why is this still here? Answer the question or take it out and off your blog. Effective debate...what a sick joke.

 

[abaddon]

What the hell is this? Why is this here? Your error has been explained to you on this point many times. Why did you include this? Are you a two-year-old with your fingers in your ears not listening to what people say? What is it an archeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating? Why is this still here? Answer the question or take it out and off your blog. Effective debate...what a sick joke.

Nope. At this point he is trying to shod the octopus.

And if one must have the reference, here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwrgAnx6Q8

 

[John Jones]

What the hell is this? Why is this here? Your error has been explained to you on this point many times. Why did you include this? Are you a two-year-old with your fingers in your ears not listening to what people say? What is it an archaeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating? Why is this still here? Answer the question or take it out and off your blog. Effective debate...what a sick joke.

*mmmphmph*

 

[SezMe]

What the hell is this? Why is this here? Your error has been explained to you on this point many times. Why did you include this? Are you a two-year-old with your fingers in your ears not listening to what people say? What is it an archeologist was supposed to add to the carbon dating? Why is this still here? Answer the question or take it out and off your blog. Effective debate...what a sick joke.

Why are you asking Jabba questions? You KNOW he won't answer - he'll just use your post as a way to mention something else ... AGAIN. Leave him alone.

 

[SezMe]

So far, I have almost never seen a thread abandoned by others because the OP was obviously and demonstrably wrong, endlessly repetitive, clinically ill, clearly a 15-year old playing games with the other posters, enjoyed the sense of power that they had by being able to invoke a following of other posters (even a highly critical one), or a person obviously seeking a reaction from others by saying outlandish things that they themselves do not believe (and I rush to explain that I am not accusing Jabba of any of these things- this list is purposely meant to be generic and includes things that do not describe Jabba at all).

Exactly so. But the highlighted word is key. It can happen and should happen in this thread. We need to just ignore him. Not put him on ignore, just don't respond to him. Unless he enjoys talking to himself, he'll eventually go somewhere else.

 

[theprestige]

12. A clear age gradient within the sample.

What the hell is this? Why is this even here?

A gradient?

Assuming such an absurd parameter were even relevant, wouldn't that argue for a younger Shroud just as much as an older Shroud?

A clear age gradient? Then clearly the scales are tipped in favor of a 2103 AD date.

 

[David Mo]

Three Italian investigatorss have struck a hard blow to one of the (wobbly) pillars of the “invisible mending” theory. If this was necessary.

“There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending”, Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli, Roberto Samperi , Thermochimica Acta , Volume 617, 10 October 2015, p. 169–17:
Available for free reading till Oct. 30, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603115003093

Abstract
This is an editorial regarding a paper published on Thermochimica Acta (R.N. Rogers, Thermochimca Acta, 425 (2005) 189–194). A close-up analysis of the pyrolysis-mass spectra reported in the original paper reveals that the differences found between the samples coming from different parts of the Shroud are just due to the presence of a contaminant with a long aliphatic chain. Except for the presence of the contaminant, the two pyrolysis-mass spectra look alike rather than different. Therefore, the pseudoscientific theory stating that the C14 sample might come from a “medieval invisible mending” remains unsupported by evidences.

It seems that Raymond Rogers, the most “reputed” sindonist scientist (according to the sindonist criteria), was not able to interpret correctly the pyrolysis-mass spectra.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Three Italian investigatorss have struck a hard blow to one of the (wobbly) pillars of the “invisible mending” theory. If this was necessary.

“There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending”, Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli, Roberto Samperi , Thermochimica Acta , Volume 617, 10 October 2015, p. 169–17:
Available for free reading till Oct. 30, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603115003093

It seems that Raymond Rogers, the most “reputed” sindonist scientist (according to the sindonist criteria), was not able to interpret correctly the pyrolysis-mass spectra.

Not to mention the 'Squatch in the Parlor:

...Several times Rogers refers to the lack of vanillin in all "samples from anywhere on the shroud," and "there was absolutely no coating with these characteristics [the colored encrustations, alizarin dye, red lakes, and swelling gum] on . . . the main part of the shroud." But how could he know this, since he apparently did not perform his "home laboratory" tests for vanillin and coatings on samples from the main part of the Shroud. After careful reading of his paper, I could find no place in which he reports his data of such tests beyond claiming that it is true...

http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

 

[aleCcowaN]

Three Italian investigatorss have struck a hard blow to one of the (wobbly) pillars of the “invisible mending” theory. If this was necessary.

“There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending”, Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli, Roberto Samperi , Thermochimica Acta , Volume 617, 10 October 2015, p. 169–17:
Available for free reading till Oct. 30, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603115003093



It seems that Raymond Rogers, the most “reputed” sindonist scientist (according to the sindonist criteria), was not able to interpret correctly the pyrolysis-mass spectra.

Not to mention the 'Squatch in the Parlor:


http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

Now we're talking! It's refreshing to discuss something serious for once.

About the non serious parts, though I don't feel like replying to that poster, the age "gradient" in that jabbalogic approach is most probably the order the subsamples were taken for testing. Say the original sample was cut into three and the dating resulted, from left to right or from top to bottom: A (1250 AD), B (1300 AD) and C (1350 AD), then, diddly-dee, gradient! The probability of this happening is one third. If someone wanted to check that out to show how predictable Jabba is, we could move onto testing Pavlov reflexes.

(Anyway, if needed, gradient could be samples in any order and the cause of it could be a grain of bug-dung or whatever needed to discredit the testing and holding on their faith because, you know, if that isn't the real shroud then Jebus didn't even existed . So much they are willing to sacrifice their faith to their ignorant stubbornness, these "believers")

 

[John Jones]

Now we're talking! It's refreshing to discuss something serious for once.

About the non serious parts, though I don't feel like replying to that poster, the age "gradient" in that jabbalogic approach is most probably the order the subsamples were taken for testing. Say the original sample was cut into three and the dating resulted, from left to right or from top to bottom: A (1250 AD), B (1300 AD) and C (1350 AD), then, diddly-dee, gradient! The probability of this happening is one third. If someone wanted to check that out to show how predictable Jabba is, we could move onto testing Pavlov reflexes.

(Anyway, if needed, gradient could be samples in any order and the cause of it could be a grain of bug-dung or whatever needed to discredit the testing and holding on their faith because, you know, if that isn't the real shroud then Jebus didn't even existed . So much they are willing to sacrifice their faith to their ignorant stubbornness, these "believers")

I'd like to see him explain (in his own words) the magnitude of the age gradient, why it casts uncertainty on the ¹⁴C date, and by how many years.

I'm reasonably certain that he never will because of his history here ("I'll be back"), and because I don't think he has a clue what he's talking about.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm reasonably certain that he never will because of his history here ("I'll be back"), and because I don't think he has a clue what he's talking about.

Certainly, he won't. His only mission is to cast shadows on every evidence that condemns the shroud to be a fake. Once a smidge of doubt is gotten, faith kicks in and a massage session starts to make 99.99%-that-is-a-fake into preponderance-of-evidence-towards-authenticity; a so far-fetched undertaking that his "I'll be back" starts to look just like the neon sign placed on Halley's Comet, to speak of something that is more likely than the authenticity of the shroud.

 

[Rincewind]

Certainly, he won't. His only mission is to cast shadows on every evidence that condemns the shroud to be a fake. Once a smidge of doubt is gotten, faith kicks in and a massage session starts to make 99.99%-that-is-a-fake into preponderance-of-evidence-towards-authenticity; a so far-fetched undertaking that his "I'll be back" starts to look just like the neon sign placed on Halley's Comet, to speak of something that is more likely than the authenticity of the shroud.

Oh, great!

We're going to have to wait until Halley's Comet returns to get this thread sorted out?

 

[Rincewind]

"jabbalogic"

Trimmed for effect...

Brilliant - I wish I'd thought of that!