Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Belz...]

It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole

Stop beating around the bush: Why would it NOT be representative?

One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

So you were lying when you said you didn't mean "patch".

 

[Craig4]

Here's the original article. I've started reading it, and there are some things in the introduction that are raising my hackles. They give the shroud a hypothetical life story that comes directly from the Shroud Believers' Playbook:

Once they get to the actual known provenance of the thing, they don't mention the D'Arcis memo which declared it a fake. Moving on to C14 testing of the shroud, they say,

They treat the Rogers paper perfectly seriously rather than just pointing and giggling. That's worrisome.

Based on the abstract, the DNA study of vacuumed particles is consistent with either a medieval date and European origin or with an ancient date and complicated origin ("Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East. Furthermore, the results raise the possibility of an Indian manufacture of the linen cloth").

Anyway, I was wondering if someone who speaks science could offer a perspective on the article. It seems to me that it doesn't really offer any useful information regarding authenticity at all since it's unclear how the pollen and other stuff got on the shroud (and when it got there). They found pollen that has a center of origin in the Americas, but I don't think they're actually suggesting that the shroud hitched a ride with Magellan.

How about the artist bought flax linen from a bolt that started life at one end of the Silk Road and ended up in the other, collecting pollen along the way?

 

[John Jones]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

That is NOT evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old. The age is not a binary question, as has been explained to you a thousand times. Why were you not paying attention?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

:

 

[Slowvehicle]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Your outright dishonesty continues...

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/turin_shroud_still_a_fake/

 

[Craig4]

That is NOT evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old. The age is not a binary question, as has been explained to you a thousand times. Why were you not paying attention?

Thanks for drawing our attention back to the elephant in the room which is that there is still nothing that supports a first century date, even if we throw out the carbon dating all together.

 

[abaddon]

That is NOT evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old. The age is not a binary question, as has been explained to you a thousand times. Why were you not paying attention?

We should sample all of it, until there is none left. That way, Jabba can claim whatever he wants, since there is no remaining shroud.

 

[Lucian]

How about the artist bought flax linen from a bolt that started life at one end of the Silk Road and ended up in the other, collecting pollen along the way?

Seems reasonable to me. It's just that the abstract and introduction seem a bit wishy washy to me, written in a way that gives shroudies something to cling to. Once I get passed the introduction...well, I'm a medievalist: I get dizzy whenever I see a periodic table that has more than four elements on it. I thought the input of someone who is less idiotic than I might be useful.

 

[wollery]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

What a pile of unmitigated bollocks!

The maths is exactly as it should be, and refers to the whole shroud, because the sample area is representative of the whole shroud, no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it otherwise.

What is so questionable about that area of the shroud?

We've been over the invisible mend crap, it was you who got in touch with the "invisible reweave" people only to be told that it would be obvious from the reverse side and used fibres from other parts of the cloth, which would actually make the date more representative of the whole.

If not a patch then what?

Contamination?

We did the calculations for how much contaminating material would have to be present to skew the results that far, and it was more than the weight of the cloth itself! That much contamination would be blatantly obvious to even the most unskilled eye, and there were skilled eyes present and others who had examined it closely before, but that's moot since all of the labs carefully cleaned their samples before testing.

So what the flipping Nora is so blooming questionable about it?

I'll tell you what's so questionable.

Nothing.

Nada.

Rien.

Nichts.

Zip.

Zilch.

The only thing that's questionable here is your pathetic attempts to find something, anything, that could help your cause.

Give it up Jabba, you lost the argument, your credibility and any respect you might have had years ago.

 

[Craig4]

We should sample all of it, until there is none left. That way, Jabba can claim whatever he wants, since there is no remaining shroud.

I suspect you could cut a section out of the face of the image and carbon date it and Jabba would still find an objection.

 

[Craig4]

Wait, Jabba, you're not suggesting that carbon 14 could decay at different rates are you?

 

[Belz...]

Is there any point anymore? With some people they can at least learn something, and maybe if one of us were debating Jabba face to face it would help, but it's clear that he isn't learning anything.

 

[catsmate]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

Pathetic. You're back to ignoring inconvenient facts again. The sample was quite sufficient for AMS and there is nothing "questionable" about the sampled area.

 

[John Jones]

We should sample all of it, until there is none left. That way, Jabba can claim whatever he wants, since there is no remaining shroud.

I advocated that a couple of months ago. Sample the whole damned tablecloth, so they would have none of it left to worship.

 

[Mojo]

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

Jabba, I know that you only have a limited amount of time on the forum, and can only do things rather slowly, so, using the "Critic's Choice" approach you used a couple of pages back, I'm going to do you the favour of rearranging that a bit more carefully than you will have had time for, into a form that better represents reality:

- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

- That statement is misleading.

It is misleading because there is no reason to think that the sample was not representative or from a "questionable area". If you have such reasons, provide them; otherwise stop pretending that there was something wrong with the sampling.

 

[abaddon]

I advocated that a couple of months ago. Sample the whole damned tablecloth, so they would have none of it left to worship.

Well, I must be honest.

I have long harboured a notion that Jabba, STURP et al. would very much prefer if the cloth were entirely used up in as many tests as could be conceived. Once so consumed, it becomes very much easier to pretend it's real.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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, do you not read my posts or are you just pretending?

A C14 test is always done on a sample, for two reasons:

1) Only a small amount of material is needed, there is no reason to use more than a sample.

2) The test is destructive: The sample is destroyed in the test. OBVIOUSLY, you don't want to destroy more of the ancient object than you absolutely have to.

Therefore, it is an essential part of the procedure the make sure the sample is representative. C14 test are ALWAYS done on a small sample, this is the standard procedure.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

They do, and I quoted the relevant part of the article. Jabba, if I'm to discuss this, I must insist that you actually read my posts.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- 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% confidencefor 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.

- That statement is misleading.
- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole

You are wrong. Since you have been told the truth, you are now a liar. The report includes such an estimate.

-- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions.

So you are saying that the church deliberately provoked a result that showed the shroud to be a fake? .... Are you CRAZY??

Anyhow you are wrong.

One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

The sample was exactly the size it needed to be to make the measurement.

Have got you any evidence that the area is questionable, or are you just talking through your hat, ... again?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- The mathematics involved referred only to the sample. It, in no way, included any estimate of the extent to which the sample represented the whole -- and that issue became a serious one as soon as the Church imposed its restrictions. One tiny sample from a highly questionable area...

From the article (again):

The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.

So, Jabba, what makes the sample site highly questionable?

Be precise and specific, or withdraw your statement.

Note: If you fail to provide precise and specific evidence that the sample area is questionable, I shall publicly conclude that you have withdrawn your statement. You will not be allowed to ignore or gloss over this.

Hans