Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[aleCcowaN]

All of Jabba's complaints about the ¹⁴C dating have been dismantled without exception.

There is a fantastically complex new method that could theoretically determine where the flax in the CIQ was grown. It's called Site-specific Natural Isotope Fractionation - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. or SNIF-NMR^* It looks at the occurrence of ¹³C, ¹⁷O, and deuterium on specific sites in a given molecule. It's currently used to authenticate wine and juices.

One problem is a dearth of flax samples known to have been grown in given locations over the last 20 centuries.

^* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_analysis_by_nuclear_magnetic_resonance

Wow! It looks the kind of technique that would cause Jabba to melt down.

It's a pity the shroud implies a "mystery of the shroud" and any further investigation attacks the "mystery" part, so the 99.99% rational certainty it's medieval is OK to most of us while a 100% irrational "certainty" it's the real deal is enough to Jabba and his troupe, and we should live with that by just neutralizing Jabba's daily puerile attempts to claim authenticity and deceive others than himself.

[Yrreg, come back! We forgive you!]

 

[Lucian]

I was curious in reading all this if some DNA from the flax itself might remain in the linen cloth. Then perhaps flax plants used in India might have detectably different genetic polymorphisms than flax plants used later or in other areas. This, if possible, would better resolve the question of where it was made, but in fact- who cares? Even if made in India or from Indian flax plants, that would not say much about its later use. Probably the fact that the weave was virtually unknown in early AD is itself very, very strong evidence that the Shroud was not available at the time of Jesus. And of course the 14C dating is more definitive still.

I hope I will not be back.

The DNA that is used to tie the shroud to India is, I believe, exclusively human. They were testing dust vacuumed from the shroud in 1978 and 1988, not the flax used to make the shroud. It doesn't seem to be a particularly useful study: it doesn't add anything to the authenticity "debate," and yet it discusses authenticity and treats pro-authenticity arguments as if they had as much weight as anti-authenticity arguments. Indeed, the only anti-authenticity argument mentioned is the C14 dating, which they describe as "robust evidence." In the next sentence they say, "However, two papers have highlighted some concerns about this determination, and a Medieval age does not appear to be compatible with the production technology of the linen nor with the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main part of the cloth in 1978." They also claim the shroud "is not yet reproducible." It's a crap article.

 

[John Jones]

Wow! It looks the kind of technique that would cause Jabba to melt down.

He'll just claim that all scientists are incompetent liars in some sort of ridiculous collusion, except those who share his faith. He's done this as a matter of course for years.

It's a pity the shroud implies a "mystery of the shroud" and any further investigation attacks the "mystery" part, so the 99.99% rational certainty it's medieval is OK to most of us while a 100% irrational "certainty" it's the real deal is enough to Jabba and his troupe, and we should live with that by just neutralizing Jabba's daily puerile attempts to claim authenticity and deceive others than himself.

It's that God of The Gaps thing. The gaps are getting smaller all the time.

 

[The Don]

It's that God of The Gaps thing. The gaps are getting smaller all the time.

Smaller but more numerous

 

[aleCcowaN]

Then, the God of the Fractal Gaps.

It's the beautified version of the God of Nooks and Crannies and the resilient version of the God Who Slip Through the Cracks.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Repair&Contamination Otherwise

Jabba,

Thank you for your reply.

As you say, the testing was done to determine the age of the linen that makes up the shroud. So it was clear from the start that the sample taken was representative of the shroud (the very purpose of the sample). You conceded this point some time ago when you realized that the banding visible only under UV spectrometry passed unaltered through the sample region. So we know that this area was created during the original weaving of the shroud.*

If the linen can be no older ~1200 AD and it has been part of the shroud since it was first on the loom... what conclusion can be drawn?



* Additional information

Monza,
- This was the purpose, but to what extent do we know that the purpose was achieved? The scientists didn't choose the sample -- the Church did.

To the full extent. We know that this area was created during the original weaving of the shroud. You conceded this point some time ago when you realized that the banding visible only under UV spectrometry passed unaltered through the sample region.

Monza,
- So far, I haven't figured out a better way to present my last post on "banding," but it's back in the second thread, and looks like this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10595879#post10595879

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Remember that I have owned up to losing rounds -- though, I think that the only round I conceded entirely was the one about "invisible reweave."
- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.
- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

 

[Belz...]

- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

Why don't you instead remember that last time you were wrong about this and not launch into the same discussion?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I wondered who would post #666. No wonder.

The devil is in the papers: The evidence is verbal and the messengers are the experts on that side ... doesn't it sound a bit biblical to the normal you?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Monza,
- So far, I haven't figured out a better way to present my last post on "banding," but it's back in the second thread, and looks like this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10595879#post10595879

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Remember that I have owned up to losing rounds -- though, I think that the only round I conceded entirely was the one about "invisible reweave."
- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.
- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

You don't have "experts," on your side, you have people like yourself; at best, they are delusional, at worst, they are mendacious

eta - I missed the "better man" and "best man" remarks. The balance has been tipped so far toward "mendacious" that nothing is ever going to pull it back to "honest delusion"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Monza,
- So far, I haven't figured out a better way to present my last post on "banding," but it's back in the second thread, and looks like this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10595879#post10595879

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever,

I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Remember that I have owned up to losing rounds -- though, I think that the only round I conceded entirely was the one about "invisible reweave."
- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.
- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

Dear Mr. Savage:

Why is it that the "best man" has simply ignored this link?

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

I remind you, as I have before, you have only one "opponent"--reality itself.

I strongly encourage you to read, process, and respond to, this article:

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

 

[John Jones]

- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.

You're the one claiming there was a re-weave going on in that area. The burden of proof is yours, not ours.

You always conveniently forget that.

 

[SezMe]

- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

Excellent. I hereby direct you otherwise to investigate why Alice was in Kansas in the first place - she should have been in Nebraska.

 

[zooterkin]

- Remember that I have owned up to losing rounds -- though, I think that the only round I conceded entirely was the one about "invisible reweave."

It's not about losing rounds, it's about looking at the evidence.

- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.

You have presented no evidence for a reweave, leaving aside the absurdity of someone going to the trouble of doing an 'invisible' mend on the edge of cloth while stitching bloody great big patches across the middle. Even if there was one, it would have used existing threads from the shroud, so it would have made no difference to the age detected by carbon dating.

- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

Once again, it's not about comparing 'experts', it's about evidence. You don't have any to support an age of 2000 years, of course, which is probably why you're finding it tricky to produce any. It's about time you realised that this is actually significant.

 

[John Jones]

[...] Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.[/I]

You've had only one opponent in the past, and you have failed miserably in every round. Name one point you think you've scored.

 

[Mashuna]

You've had only one opponent in the past, and you have failed miserably in every round. Name one point you think you've scored.

I think he's managed to punch himself in the face on several occasions. Does that count?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

Narcissism noted.

You're in the fantasy business, it has been always evident. Wholesaler. But that doesn't hide you don't know how evidence works, with that "one opponent" crap.

 

[John Jones]

I think he's managed to punch himself in the face on several occasions. Does that count?

LOL

He's lost points for hitting below the belt. (McCrone was hard to get along with)

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Monza,
- So far, I haven't figured out a better way to present my last post on "banding," but it's back in the second thread, and looks like this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10595879#post10595879

Tim,

- I've tried to answer your question twice before: 8530 and 8770. I don't understand what's wrong with my answers...

- So far, you guys are winning this fight (at least in the minds of our audience -- and, my defenses have been breached). But then, my Dad told me to "never give up" -- and while I have at times decided to concede on something that I'm attempting, I do tend to be stubborn and forever hopeful. And so far, I still think I'm the better man in this fight...
- So far, as I recall, I've lost rounds on "trace elements," "serum clot retraction rings," "banding" and probably more (but then, these might need to be reopened) -- and, if you guys can show me that the stains are not blood, I will, in fact, cease and desist...
- But then, I keep remembering all those times that I've misplaced something in the house, swearing that there's a black hole in our house, only to find the lost item staring me in the face (in our house) sometime later... Whatever, I'm not big on giving up and I still think that I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win it if I just had only one opponent.

- Remember that I have owned up to losing rounds -- though, I think that the only round I conceded entirely was the one about "invisible reweave."
- Anyway, otherwise, first of all, the banding is confusing; and otherwise, second of all, the banding doesn't prove that there was no re-weave going on in that area, or that the area wasn't contaminated.
- Whatever, unless otherwise directed, I'll go back and see what the experts (on my side) say about the banding and its implications re reweave.

 

[catsmate]

So where does Jabba's contamination come from? Isn't it just the magical contamination of the magical patch in the magic carpet that will fly the believers to heaven?

Yep. I've asked him, repeatedly, to provide an example of a contaminant that could survive the cleaning regimes used. He's, repeatedly, refused to do do.

Monza,
<snip>

Instead of wasting everyone's time with rubbish like this why aren't your providing your supposed "evidence"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba, why do you believe that the number of your opponents has any influence on the facts we are discussing?

Hans