Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back that up? Your incredulity is not sufficient evidence, by the way.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jabba, do you remember the discussions about patching and contamination? The rest of us do.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Personally, I think it must be emphasized, ans re-emphasized, that Rogers claimed that his "Vanillin Degradation" test showed that the tested corner was "different" from the rest of the CIQ, apparently without ever testing the rest of the CIQ.
Click to expand...

This is not absolutely exact. Rogers claimed that he got some fibers of the main body of the shroud. The problem is that the chain of transmission of these clandestine (non authorized by the Vatican) samples was never clarified. Rogers give some confuse explanations divergent in some points and Thibault Heimburger, a physician and signified sindonist, has tried to do it better but has failed on some obscure points.

But Rogers' experiment had more hollows and the recent article of Bella et al. digs deeper in the hole.
 
David Mo said:
This is not absolutely exact. Rogers claimed that he got some fibers of the main body of the shroud. The problem is that the chain of transmission of these clandestine (non authorized by the Vatican) samples was never clarified. Rogers give some confuse explanations divergent in some points and Thibault Heimburger, a physician and signified sindonist, has tried to do it better but has failed on some obscure points.

But Rogers' experiment had more hollows and the recent article of Bella et al. digs deeper in the hole.
Click to expand...

In any case, the sindonists never have done an experiment with similar precautionary measures to what they demanded for the radiocarbon dating. Neither similar to the definitive conditions of the 1988 dating. In reality they are unable to present a process of archaeological dating with such assurances.

If the radiocarbon dating was not guaranteed I don't know what can be said of Rogers' activities. Maybe "Sci Fi tales"?
 
Jabba said:
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.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10512125&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.
Click to expand...

Mmm, Jabba: You are supposed to present the needle, not the haystack.

Anyway...

There are two relevant interest groups in this:

1) The C14 labs. Those may be more or less motivated to participate. The trial is a high-profile case, which may be good, but whatever result comes out is bound to be shrouded in controversy (couldn't resist that one), which may be bad. In any case they will be interested in producing a reliable result, and are unlikely to jeopardize their reputation by adding their name to a doubtful procedure.

Thus, we can assume that whatever the problems, they would not have participated unless they found the conditions acceptable. For this to be the case, they must have concluded that the sample was valid and representative.

2) The church. The church must obviously have been split between a wish to discover the truth, and a fear that the truth might be uncomfortable. - And, surely, some simply did not want to have their faith challenged (we know such people, don't we?).

Obviously, the church would not want to point out a non-representative sample, since that could only reuslt in a less than favorable result.

So we can safely assume that the samples submitted were, to the best ability of everyone involved, representative of the shroud as a whole. Those samples yielded consistent results from no less than three independent labs (an unusually thorough procedure), so there is simply no basis for doubting it: The fabric samples submitted to C14 originated from the 14th century.

The obviuos conclusion, pending new and important evidence, is that the shroud of Turin was fabricated in the 14th century.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jabba, your beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion.

Hans :rolleyes:
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's funny, there are some things that you find very hard to believe, and others that you find really easy to believe. There doesn't appear to be any basis in evidence for what you do or don't believe, so there must be some other common factor. Now if only I could figure out what that factor might be. . .
 
David Mo said:
Sorry. This is not "Latín".This is the old good Spanish, i.e. "Castilian". With respect to everybody.
Click to expand...

Inside Joke. Look at the last line of Jabba's sig. Jabba swears it's Latin even after being told that it's pidgin Italian.
 
Slowvehicle said:
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 ShroudTM"; it is a 700-year-old-piece of linen with an artwork on it.
Click to expand...

Indeed my limited understand is that it was used as a religious artifact , NOT as a real shroud of the christ but as an Easter representation thereof, just like a status in the church.

As such it is not fake. just medieval.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

No method is infallible. But then again nothing is infallible. just telling that is meanignless.

What is meaning is to describe WHEN the method fail, and to what percentage of failure is expected.

E.g. My test XYZ can determine date within 10 years in case A,B,CV but it fails when condition D is present then it shows date within 100 years, and if in addition condition E is present then it uttely fail.


Your objection is invalid until you show
1) the carbon dating fail spectacularly in some condition
2) describe the conditions
3) show it is not JUST a greater error on the year but a meaningless random result in those condition
4) demonstrate that those condition were present in the shroud

Do you understand ? Or will you ignore this ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom