Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Humots]

Hans,
- Oops! I really screwed up! The Devil must have made me do it!
- I used the absolute wrong word above. I should have said "sample" rather than "patch." "Patch" only confused the issue. I should have said, "The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular sample they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud."
- Would you agree with that statement?

Jabba, are you saying that the sample was somehow not representative of the linen of the shroud?

If so, then in what way did the sample fail to be representative?

And how could a representative sample be taken?

You seem to be arguing that since the sample did not give the date you wanted, it must therefore be different from the rest of the shroud.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Jabba, are you saying that the sample was somehow not representative of the linen of the shroud?

If so, then in what way did the sample fail to be representative?

And how could a representative sample be taken?

You seem to be arguing that since the sample did not give the date you wanted, it must therefore be different from the rest of the shroud.

Welcome do Jabbalogic. You see, the shroud is authentic, therefore there has to be evidence out there that will prove it. And the carbon dating has to be wrong, you see, because teh shroud is authentic, you see.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba, are you saying that the sample was somehow not representative of the linen of the shroud?

If so, then in what way did the sample fail to be representative?

And how could a representative sample be taken?

You seem to be arguing that since the sample did not give the date you wanted, it must therefore be different from the rest of the shroud.

BINGO!

It all goes back to Jabba believing that the CIQ is authentic, and then looking for evidence to support this forgone conclusion -- rather than follow the evidence to where it leads.

Isn't that so, Mr Savage?

 

[Mojo]

- From http://shroud.com/nature.htm
- The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Hans,
- It appears to me that the authors were not careful about their wording. The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular patch they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud.

Hans,
- Oops! I really screwed up! The Devil must have made me do it!
- I used the absolute wrong word above. I should have said "sample" rather than "patch." "Patch" only confused the issue. I should have said, "The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular sample they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud."
- Would you agree with that statement?

Jabba, if you were not implying that the sample came from a patch, then your argument makes no sense. The only way the shroud could be older than the sample would be if the sample came from a later patch.

 

[Nonpareil]

Welcome do Jabbalogic. You see, the shroud is authentic, therefore there has to be evidence out there that will prove it. And the carbon dating has to be wrong, you see, because teh shroud is authentic, you see.

You forgot the "more later".

 

[Mojo]

You forgot the "more of the same later".

FTFY. It's never anything we haven't seen before, is it?

 

[Aepervius]

Hans,
- Oops! I really screwed up! The Devil must have made me do it!
- I used the absolute wrong word above. I should have said "sample" rather than "patch." "Patch" only confused the issue. I should have said, "The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular sample they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud."
- Would you agree with that statement?

Next time somebody will want to make sure you got no diabetis, the only way to be sure will be to put you in a giant blender, then go full speed, then test every centiliter of the blender if there is too much glucose. Then tell your beraved family the diagnosis.

Alternatively you could stop making making ignorant remark and acknowledge that people use SAMPLING for a good reason. Hint : if the sample is representative, as it is in this case as there was no patching, then you only need a few bits and your remark about the 95% confidence being about the sample only is idiotic.

So next time : no blender for you. Only 10 cc blood taken.

 

[zooterkin]

I should have said, "The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular sample they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud."

Unless you have any evidence that the sample is not representative of the whole shroud (which seems unlikely given it's all one piece of cloth, IIRC), why would the sample have a different date from the rest of the shroud?

 

[Craig4]

So Jabba, I'm just dying to know that if the sample was not taken from a repair or a patch, how could it not be part of the original cloth?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- Oops! I really screwed up! The Devil must have made me do it!
- I used the absolute wrong word above. I should have said "sample" rather than "patch." "Patch" only confused the issue. I should have said, "The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular sample they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud."
- Would you agree with that statement?

No. I noticed your error, but ignored it. My reply stands.

The whole idea of C14 testing is to determine the age of the entire object. Thus, a C14 report implies that the sample has been considered representative.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

I really screwed up!

Yep, though I suspect you don't fully appreciate the scale.

 

[Aepervius]

Yep, though I suspect you don't fully appreciate the scale.

Holy FSM, ixnay on the worday "scale" it is a taboo word now. Too much bad blood with Jabba's tipping of the scale .

 

[wollery]

We can only hope that the scales will drop from Jabba's eyes so that he might see the scale of his task. After all, he has a mountain to scale if he is ever to convince anyone that the scales tilt in favour of authenticity. I'd say that on a scale of 1 to 10 his chances are about -100.

Right, I'm off to scale some fish for my lunch and while I'm at it there's some scale in the kettle that needs to be dealt with.

I'll be back.

 

[catsmate]

there was a lot of emotionality involved in those 10 years of preparation;

The shroudies of STURP were indeed emotionally wedded to their cloth; the fact that it was a fake was deeply upsetting.
But it was, and is, reality.

emotionality could have affected the reliability of the results.

Utter rubbish.

- Since you said that emotionality is irrelevant, I'll assume that you accept that there was a lot of emotionality involved in the 10 years leading up to the carbon dating itself...

A truly pathetic attempt to declare victory, even by your standards.

- My first sub-claim is that none of the labs would have accepted the particular sample as being sufficient, and appropriate, for determining the age of the shroud, had dating the shroud not been such a prize.

Utter rubbish. The sampling process has been discussed extensively here, and you know this despite your convenient lapses into amnesia.
The sampling are was selected by experts and the removal supervised by them.
Your imputations of a patch remain pathetic nonsense

- From http://shroud.com/nature.htm
- The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Correct. The shroud is a medieval creation, faked to exploit the gullible.

- It appears to me that the authors were not careful about their wording. The 95% confidence of their dating was for the particular patch they studied -- it was not for the the linen of the shroud.

Again, utter rubbish. There was no magic patch to save your need for the shroud to be real.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Statistics

Jabba, are you saying that the sample was somehow not representative of the linen of the shroud?

If so, then in what way did the sample fail to be representative?

And how could a representative sample be taken?

You seem to be arguing that since the sample did not give the date you wanted, it must therefore be different from the rest of the shroud.

Humots,
- All I'm saying is that the measurements were done on a small sample, and we don't know what the probability is that the sample is essentially representative of the whole. If we're assigning a confidence level to the age of the linen, we need to take that issue into account -- and we haven't.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Jabba, you claim emotion affected the carbon date without explanation or evidence. In fact you have utterly failed to present anything like a coherent evidence based case for the cloth being the shroud. If your position was not based on emotion and wishful thinking you could offer a coherent argument off the cuff. You are the one led by emotion on the subject.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Humots,
- All I'm saying is that the measurements were done on a small sample, and we don't know what the probability is that the sample is essentially representative of the whole. If we're assigning a confidence level to the age of the linen, we need to take that issue into account -- and we haven't.

 

[Jabba]

No. I noticed your error, but ignored it. My reply stands.

The whole idea of C14 testing is to determine the age of the entire object. Thus, a C14 report implies that the sample has been considered representative.

Hans

Hans,
- Shouldn't they address that issue in their article?

 

[John Jones]

Humots,
- All I'm saying is that the measurements were done on a small sample, and we don't know what the probability is that the sample is essentially representative of the whole. If we're assigning a confidence level to the age of the linen, we need to take that issue into account -- and we haven't.

You have evidence that it's not representative of the whole? Fabric experts on hand for the sampling affirmed that it's a representative sample with no patching, and the cleaning process removed any contamination.

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- Shouldn't they address that issue in their article?

People that understand ¹⁴C dating (clearly not you) understand that.