Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Belz...]

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'm sorry but that's entirely deluded and borderline insane.

 

[John Jones]

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

Hans

I don't get it either. He typically ignores everyone but his current most favored poster anyway.

 

[Christian Klippel]

... I've lost rounds ...

... I'm the best man in this fight and would easily win ...

... I have owned up to losing rounds ...

Here's some really, very important info for you:

This is not a game, and it is not a fight either. There is absolutely nothing about all this that can be decided by a game or by a fight. This is solely and purely about facts and evidence, both of which you have exactly none of.

Really, stop insulting other people's intelligence.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Of course it's a game. When the "pretend to be looking for evidence" shtick is wearing thin, switch to the "best man in the fight" shtick and watch the controversy pile up.

It's almost up to the eaves!

 

[aleCcowaN]

What are you saying? That Jabba's is just "if the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence; if logic is on your side, pound the logic into the table; if evidence and logic are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"? Who wud've'thunk!

 

[Rincewind]

Of course it's a game. When the "pretend to be looking for evidence" shtick is wearing thin, switch to the "best man in the fight" shtick and watch the controversy pile up.

It's almost up to the eaves!

And the controversy?

 

[ferd burfle]

I enjoyed the little interlude a few pages back where we discussed science instead of playing whack-a-mole (whack-a Hut?). In that spirit I'd like to to pose a bit of a teaser about something I noticed in the EDX data (Table I) of McCrone's paper at http://www.mcri.org.php53-15.dfw1-1...s/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf

What is conspicuously absent from the elements he listed? Hint: the X-ray detectors in SEM/EDX systems can ususally see elements at least as light as boron at atomic number 5.

 

[Monza]

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."

Well, in your quote above you mention that you have "lost" on the banding issue.

But you have also conceded that there is no "invisible reweave". This means that the sample area is part of the original shroud. The sample, and thus the shroud itself, is made from linen no older than ~1200 AD.

- 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.

If the issue is confusing, it doesn't mean that it can be dismissed. If there is something you don't understand, just ask. There are several people (even some scientists) who regularly post in this thread that would be happy to explain an issue. I have learned a lot reading what others have written in this thread.

And yes, the banding does prove that the area was not subject to a reweave. That is the point. If this area had been damaged such that someone decided to weave in new threads, it would have been impossible to maintain the banding even if they tried. Though in truth, they could never even have known about it.

- 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 really should forget this "my side : your side" business. There is just evidence. The best is to present evidence, discuss it, and follow where ever it leads.

 

[John Jones]

I enjoyed the little interlude a few pages back where we discussed science instead of playing whack-a-mole (whack-a Hut?). In that spirit I'd like to to pose a bit of a teaser about something I noticed in the EDX data (Table I) of McCrone's paper at http://www.mcri.org.php53-15.dfw1-1...s/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf

What is conspicuously absent from the elements he listed? Hint: the X-ray detectors in SEM/EDX systems can ususally see elements at least as light as boron at atomic number 5.

I know very little of the techniques involved, but I'm going to guess F. Is there a reason why it wasn't included when elements on both sides of it on the periodic table of the elements were?

 

[ferd burfle]

I know very little of the techniques involved, but I'm going to guess F. Is there a reason why it wasn't included when elements on both sides of it on the periodic table of the elements were?

If the colored particles were in fact blood, what should be very abundant with atomic number Be>X>Na?

 

[John Jones]

If the colored particles were in fact blood, what should be very abundant with atomic number Be>X>Na?

But the CIQ is made of carbon and oxygen. Wouldn't that give too high a background signal to provide useable data? I don't know about N, except that the air is made of it.

 

[Alderbank]

But the CIQ is made of carbon and oxygen. Wouldn't that give too high a background signal to provide useable data? I don't know about N, except that the air is made of it.

Haemoglobin is made of it as well. It is built around an atom of Fe²⁺ surrounded by four nitrogens and all those peptide chains have plenty of nitrogen-containing amino groups.

Am I warm?

 

[ferd burfle]

But the CIQ is made of carbon and oxygen. Wouldn't that give too high a background signal to provide useable data? I don't know about N, except that the air is made of it.

Sorry, I should have said in the SEM they would have isolated the SEM beam on individual particles to exclude background data. I believe they also picked the particles off the sample source and transferred them to a clean sample holder to go into the SEM; McCrone's staff routinely picks and transfers particles as small as 1 micron using fine hand-held tungsten probes. Not to milk this, they should have seen a strong carbon signal if it was blood. Sometimes what you don't detect is as important as what you do.

 

[Craig4]

Not that it matters much but there's nothing in your post that provides evidence that the sample for the carbon dating wasn't part of the original cloth. We need not be detained with your concerns about the carbon dating if you can't tell us why the sample was not part of the original cloth.

 

[John Jones]

Sorry, I should have said in the SEM they would have isolated the SEM beam on individual particles to exclude background data. I believe they also picked the particles off the sample source and transferred them to a clean sample holder to go into the SEM; McCrone's staff routinely picks and transfers particles as small as 1 micron using fine hand-held tungsten probes. Not to milk this, they should have seen a strong carbon signal if it was blood. Sometimes what you don't detect is as important as what you do.

Fascinating.

Thanks, ferd burfle. I'm going to do some homework on this fascinating aspect of the chemistry and physics of the CIQ.

Jabba will no doubt join me in this endeavor.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Jabba will no doubt join me in this endeavor.

<Giggles>

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Craig4]

I am curious about where you go to get flax yarn in the year 1300 CE that looks just like flax yarn made in the year 33 CE. I imagine the local craft stores had such supplies in abundance. Probably had a bin of "distressed" yarn for that shabby chic look.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The science of the invisible patch is less sound than the science in Star Trek. Invisible patch implies invisible to human vision when you are not looking for it, not a Jules Verne like setting of medieval nuns fooling future electronic microscopes.

The jabbasic horde will have better luck by arguing the 14C gave a young date because the cloth ages slowly because it is impregnated in holly messianic essence. The "gradient" itself shows that it ages slower as you go towards the holly wounds. I'm sure that's either Jabba's inner feeling or backup plan.

Everyone is entitled their own Star Trek saga.

 

[John Jones]

The science of the invisible patch is less sound than the science in Star Trek. Invisible patch implies invisible to human vision when you are not looking for it, not a Jules Verne like setting of medieval nuns fooling future electronic microscopes.

The jabbasic horde will have better luck by arguing the 14C gave a young date because the cloth ages slowly because it is impregnated in holly messianic essence. The "gradient" itself shows that it ages slower as you go towards the holly wounds. I'm sure that's either Jabba's inner feeling or backup plan.

Everyone is entitled their own Star Trek saga.

If I were given to speculation, I would guess that it is more emotionally satisfying to just write-off science and logic as tools of nefarious, incompetent liars.

Such a metaphorical rabbit punch would make me the "best man in this fight".

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/"Invisible Re-weave"/Banding

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.

Well, in your quote above you mention that you have "lost" on the banding issue.

But you have also conceded that there is no "invisible reweave". This means that the sample area is part of the original shroud. The sample, and thus the shroud itself, is made from linen no older than ~1200 AD...

Monza,
- I have given up on the invisible reweave, but not on the near-invisible reweave.
- Now, back to the banding and its implications re the possibility of near-invisible reweave.