Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Belz...]

Hans,
- I have numerous haystacks in which to find my needles, so this will take even longer than usual

Raymond J. Schneider: The Flawed Carbon Dating Process

Don't you get it, at this point, that this isn't what we're asking you to do?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- I have numerous haystacks in which to find my needles, so this will take even longer than usual -- but the following might be a good place to start.
- From http://www.internationalskeptics.co...5&highlight=carbon+dating+doubts#post10512125
- From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf, a 2013 article by
Raymond J. Schneider: The Flawed Carbon Dating Process
The problem with the samples did not originate with the carbon labs however. William Meachum had warned in a submission to Archbishop
Ballestrero: "It is a very serious error indeed to proceed with C14 dating
on the assumption that it is an infallible method." [2] A protocol had been
recommended by the Turin conference held in September 1986. It was advanced
as a recommendation and not a binding agreement. None the less the
recommendations involved more than three labs, a mix of both counter labs
and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) labs, and most importantly samples
from multiple sites. The decision to limit the dating to three labs, using
only the AMS method and restricting the sampling to a single highly
contaminated site were all outcomes determined by a politicized and highly
bureaucratic process of Byzantine proportions. Mix in a lot of backbiting
and intrigue as thoroughly documented by Harry Gove [3] and William Meacham
[4] and you have a recipe for disaster.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to indicate who it was, in your understanding, that made the final decision about which protocols were to be followed. I wonder if you, yourself know.

I wonder how, short of continued accusations of fraud, and other unsupported calumny, you think that "emotionality" affects the results of measuring the radioactive decay of ¹⁴C.

I wonder if you will rudely ignore this post, as you have so many others of mine.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Emotionality

Hans,
- Something to quickly add...
- This was a really big deal for the labs wanting to be involved -- I can't believe that they would have accepted the restrictions imposed by the church if it hadn't been such a big deal.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well, it boosts self-esteem when you remember that several times in your life you've changed your mind on stuff you believed in, supernatural or otherwise, because reality just didn't agree with you. I used to think the Shroud was a big mystery until I decided to read up. I used to think I could bust clouds until I noticed the times it didn't work (that is, most of the time). I used to think relativity was bunk until I looked into it. Etc.

I had my what-if? period during my teenage with von Däniken, the hollow Earth and Atlantis. One has a need for wonder and that fulfilled it. Nothing religious but the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir according to von Däniken.

It's more a random issue, I reckon. I always knew intuitively that if the shroud was suspected to be authentic it would have been the most sacred object in the universe and its outskirts. The social surrounding didn't reflect that so believers think it is a fake so, what was I going to think of it?. Besides, being from a different culture I am used since a kid to filter the "anglosaxonation" of history in media ("King of Kings" was available in TV every Good Friday since I can remember) so blond Jesuses are filtered in my mind and the image in the shroud is too obvious a 2-D representation of a tall Aryan. But again, that's by accident. I could think slightly possible the Earth to be hollow just to learn physics and calculus from age 17 on and arrive by myself to the knowledge a hollow sphere has zero gravity in the hollow part of it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I, personally, try not to use the term, "fake", for the CIQ. It is, after all, an actual artifact; a thing that exists. It is not the "True Shroud^TM"; it is a 700-year-old-piece of linen with an artwork on it.

Fair enough.

 

[Belz...]

Hans,
- Something to quickly add...
- This was a really big deal for the labs wanting to be involved -- I can't believe that they would have accepted the restrictions imposed by the church if it hadn't been such a big deal.

Still waiting for evidence for the Shroud's authenticity -- not, I repeat, NOT, some vague allusion to the C14 testing being unreliable.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba has just been looking at part II of the thread, so don't be surprised if there's another reset in the near future.

Hans,
- I have numerous haystacks in which to find my needles, so this will take even longer than usual -- but the following might be a good place to start.
- From http://www.internationalskeptics.co...5&highlight=carbon+dating+doubts#post10512125
- From http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf, a 2013 article by
Raymond J. Schneider: The Flawed Carbon Dating Process
The problem with the samples did not originate with the carbon labs however. William Meachum had warned in a submission to Archbishop
Ballestrero: "It is a very serious error indeed to proceed with C14 dating
on the assumption that it is an infallible method." [2] A protocol had been
recommended by the Turin conference held in September 1986. It was advanced
as a recommendation and not a binding agreement. None the less the
recommendations involved more than three labs, a mix of both counter labs
and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) labs, and most importantly samples
from multiple sites. The decision to limit the dating to three labs, using
only the AMS method and restricting the sampling to a single highly
contaminated site were all outcomes determined by a politicized and highly
bureaucratic process of Byzantine proportions. Mix in a lot of backbiting
and intrigue as thoroughly documented by Harry Gove [3] and William Meacham
[4] and you have a recipe for disaster.

Jabba, have you read the posts that followed your original posting of that?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Look what I found elsewhere

The problem with the samples did not originate with the carbon labs however. William Meachum had warned in a submission to Archbishop Ballestrero: "It is a very serious error indeed to proceed with C14 dating on the assumption that it is an infallible method." [2] A protocol had been recommended by the Turin conference held in September 1986. It was
advanced as a recommendation and not a binding agreement. None the less the recommendations involved more than three labs, a mix of both counter labs and AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) labs, and most importantly samples from multiple sites. The decision to limit the dating to three labs, using only the AMS method and restricting the
sampling to a single highly contaminated site were all outcomes determined by a politicized and highly bureaucratic process of Byzantine proportions. Mix in a lot of backbiting and intrigue as thoroughly documented by Harry Gove [3] and William Meacham [4] and you have a recipe for
disaster.

taken from here.

What do you think about? Three issues for me: For the date of the original tests, what other method of sampling would have you recommended? What other method of dating would you have used? Do the answer to the previous questions invalidate the official dating?

I'm interested both in the serious approach and in the desperate "if that isn't the authentic shroud then our faith is wrongly placed" approach.

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- I have numerous haystacks in which to find my needles, so this will take even longer than usual [...].[/I]

Take the rest of your life if you want. We've seen everything you've got. The stuff that doesn't debunk itself has already been dismantled.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hans,
- Something to quickly add...
- This was a really big deal for the labs wanting to be involved -- I can't believe that they would have accepted the restrictions imposed by the church if it hadn't been such a big deal.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I wonder how, in your mind, the labs that hoped to be involved should have, or could have, refunded the "restrictions imposed by the church". Armed insurrection? Theft? Hire Dan Brown?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Still waiting for evidence for the Shroud's authenticity -- not, I repeat, NOT, some vague allusion to the C14 testing being unreliable.

How's that working out for you?
(at school, so I do not have a popcorn icon...)

 

[John Jones]

Look what I found elsewhere

taken from here.

What do you think about? Three issues for me: For the date of the original tests, what other method of sampling would have you recommended? What other method of dating would you have used? Do the answer to the previous questions invalidate the official dating?

I'm interested both in the serious approach and in the desperate "if that isn't the authentic shroud then our faith is wrongly placed" approach.

I don't know how many labs had Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) in 1988. Ultimately, the church was the final arbiter on which labs were chosen and where the samples were taken.

After the fact bitterness notwithstanding, this was the best controlled ¹⁴C testing ever done.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Look what I found elsewhere

taken from here.

What do you think about? Three issues for me: For the date of the original tests, what other method of sampling would have you recommended? What other method of dating would you have used? Do the answer to the previous questions invalidate the official dating?

I'm interested both in the serious approach and in the desperate "if that isn't the authentic shroud then our faith is wrongly placed" approach.

Yeah. I just love the assertion that the chosen site (chosen after several days of examination and negotiation) was "highly contaminated" (as if contamination was not routinely dealt with in ¹⁴C dating); an assertion made by the same group that asserts the existence of "some patching" or an "invisible repair", in that same, "highy contaminated" area.

It's the same approach used for the presence (and simultaneous absence) of Iron(III) oxide...

 

[zooterkin]

- I have numerous haystacks in which to find my needles, so this will take even longer than usual -- but the following might be a good place to start.

How about not making statements until you actually have some evidence to back it up first? I realise it may be too much to ask that you look at the evidence first and then draw conclusions, rather that flailing about looking for scraps of insinuation to bolster your predetermined position, but if you're going to allege things, at least have some idea what you're talking about and where you read it.

 

[Belz...]

How's that working out for you?

Well, it's entertaining, in a trainwreck/roadkill kind of way.

 

[Pixel42]

Hans,
- Something to quickly add...
- This was a really big deal for the labs wanting to be involved -- I can't believe that they would have accepted the restrictions imposed by the church if it hadn't been such a big deal.

What restrictions? All that was required was a sample of the cloth. The site of the sample, the number of samples, the amount of contamination, all were utterly irrelevant for reasons that have been explained to you many times. A single sample, from any part of the original cloth, was all that was needed to give a reliable date. The fact that three separate labs carried out three separate tests gave belt and braces confidence in the date, but even that wasn't really necessary.

 

[ferd burfle]

McCrone was hard to get along with, therefore authenticity.

I had the good fortune to see Walt McCrone speak at a conference some 20 years ago. the affection for him in the room was palpable; far beyond mere respect for an accomplished scientist. If some found him difficult or disagreeable, i have to believe it was because he posessed that fault common to many competent professionals, an unwillingness to suffer fools (or frauds) gladly.

 

[zooterkin]

Jabba, have you read the posts that followed your original posting of that?

Jabba, you can look here.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yeah. I just love the assertion that the chosen site (chosen after several days of examination and negotiation) was "highly contaminated" (as if contamination was not routinely dealt with in ¹⁴C dating); an assertion made by the same group that asserts the existence of "some patching" or an "invisible repair", in that same, "highy contaminated" area.

It's the same approach used for the presence (and simultaneous absence) of Iron(III) oxide...

Yes, it looks like it's highly contaminated, a patch, a witch cast a spell on it and finally Satan took a dump on it, just to invalidate the testing and stray the true believers. Because scientist are routinely dumb while religious folk are so smart.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, it looks like it's highly contaminated, a patch, a witch cast a spell on it and finally Satan took a dump on it, just to invalidate the testing and stray the true believers. Because scientist are routinely dumb while religious folk are so smart.

¡Claro que si!