Merged: Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- This is why I've been trying to design a "device" for insuring actually effective debate. We who would like to make our best educated guesses, re all sorts of important issues, in each case need to hear the whole story -- both sides of it. My claim is that 1) having access to effective debate between opposing experts is our best bet for doing that -- and, 2) that we can develop a method for at least promoting effective debate, if not actually insuring it.
- At the very least, we humans should be placing some concerted effort into developing such a scheme. That's why I came to this forum.
- So far, our particular debate has been anything but effective. But then, in my opinion of course, I have a totally reasonable excuse -- i.e., I haven't been able to convince the contributors here to play by my rules (and to thereby see if my rules might work)...
- I provide my theory of debate on one of my websites, starting with http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86, continuing on http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=88 and finishing with http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68.
- Please have a look and tell me what you think.

--- Jabba

Pass. This is not a debate. You denying all the evidence is not debating.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- This is why I've been trying to design a "device" for insuring actually effective debate. We who would like to make our best educated guesses, re all sorts of important issues, in each case need to hear the whole story -- both sides of it.

That's not what you're doing, though. Science already HAS a "device" for insuring actually effective debate--that, more than anything else, is the justification for peer-reviewed publications. Those ARE THE DEBATE. What you're trying to do is shoe-horn a scientific debate into a TV courtroom style debate, which stifles debate rather than facilitating it.

As for "educated guesses", that's actually slander. The C14 dating IS NOT A GUESS. It's proof. Also, I'd like to point out that several of us here have demonstrated that even if we are guessing our guesses are educated. You, on the other hand, have revealed a deplorable lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts involved in this discussion. The fact that you thought radiometric decay was linear, and the fact that you think that invisible patches are undetectable despite the statements of people who do that sort of thing for a living, shows that you are presenting UNeducated guesses.

When one side of a discussion has data, and the other has nothing but equivocation and attempts to dictate the terms of the conversation to hide their lack of data, which do you think is most likely the side that's right?

Quote:

- At the very least, we humans should be placing some concerted effort into developing such a scheme. That's why I came to this forum.

We have. It's called "peer review".

Quote:

- So far, our particular debate has been anything but effective.

That's beacuse you have thus far refused to consider that you might in fact be wrong. You want to make it look like us big mean skeptics and scientists are supressing you ("Help! Help! I'm being opressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"). In truth, we're moving the conversation forward, and honest readers--including myself--have learned a great deal. The fact that you think this debate isn't effective indicates that you are NOT an honest reader.

Quote:

But then, in my opinion of course, I have a totally reasonable excuse -- i.e., I haven't been able to convince the contributors here to play by my rules

Ah, yes, the fact that you've been unable to convince us that your demonstrably uneducated guesses are superior to the research and conclusions of experts in numerous fields is OBVIOUSLY because we're not letting you dictate the terms of the converation.

Quote:

- Please have a look and tell me what you think.

No. This is nothing more than you attempting to dictate the terms of the conversation in a way that favors your side. I refuse to play by those rules. And I'm saying that as someone who was proven wrong in this thread--I have no fear of being proven wrong, my reason for rejecting your rules for debate is that they are not honest.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Actually, I don't think you can just multiply the uncertainties. Some of the error sources are random and do fall exponentially with the number of labs, but others, e.g. the much discussed pollution, are systematic and would affect all labs.

Yes, but seeing as we've established that the minimum amount of pollution required to get a result that was that far off was 40% pollutant, and that the labs actually washed the cloth before testing, I think we can safely rule that out. Especially as there's absolutely zero evidence to the contrary.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So far, our particular debate has been anything but effective.

On the contrary, it has been completely effective. It has effectively demonstrated to any reasonably impartial observer that the case for the shroud being a medieval artifact is so compelling it is pretty much unanswerable, and that those who believe it is the shroud of Jesus got nothin'.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So far, our particular debate has been anything but effective.

The debate has been very effective. Many people have presented plenty of scientific data to support their positions. This has not only helped people to learn things they didn't know previously, but has also quite clearly shown that the Shroud of Turin is a fake from the 13th-14th Century.

You argued against he C14 dating until you realised that you couldn't actually dispute it, and then you changed the subject. You argued that there was a patch until you realised that you couldn't support that position, and then you changed the subject. That's why you think the debate has been ineffective - because you haven't been able to present any data which backs up what you'd like to believe. If you were to take this lack of data supporting your position as a sign that maybe you should re-assess your conclusions, then you could find it to be an effective debate, too. But if you'll only consider the debate effective if it supports your beliefs, then you'll never find it effective, because the data doesn't support your beliefs and this is a sceptic's forum. That means that we base our beliefs on what the data actually shows to be true. If there were data which supported your beliefs and you were to present it, then you would change people's minds. But there isn't, so you can't, so you won't. Which means, I'm afraid, that you'll never find this debate effective, because you'll never get the result you want until you have empirical data to support your beliefs.

[Alex Cured]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- This is why I've been trying to design a "device" for insuring actually effective debate.
[...]
--- Jabba

Such a thing already exists. It's called the scientific method. And this particular investigation requires nothing more than Occam's Razor: Choose the simplest explanation that fits all the facts. And the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the shroud is a fake.

It doesn't fit what you present though, but what you present aren't facts. What you present is disinformation put about by people who can't accept the facts.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by moron

Hi folks,

<snip>

A highly credible hypothesis expounded by some-one was that Leonardo da Vinci learned of these light sensitive compounds and that the shroud of Turin is a photograph of da Vinci himself.

<snip>

Sorry, it's not credible at all. The Shroud was first attested to in 1390. Leonardo da Vinci wasn't born until 1452—over 60 years later.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,

- This is why I've been trying to design a "device" for insuring actually effective debate. We who would like to make our best educated guesses, re all sorts of important issues, in each case need to hear the whole story -- both sides of it. My claim is that 1) having access to effective debate between opposing experts is our best bet for doing that -- and, 2) that we can develop a method for at least promoting effective debate, if not actually insuring it.
- At the very least, we humans should be placing some concerted effort into developing such a scheme. That's why I came to this forum.
- So far, our particular debate has been anything but effective. But then, in my opinion of course, I have a totally reasonable excuse -- i.e., I haven't been able to convince the contributors here to play by my rules (and to thereby see if my rules might work)...
- I provide my theory of debate on one of my websites, starting with http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=86, continuing on http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=88 and finishing with http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=68.
- Please have a look and tell me what you think.

--- Jabba

What I think is that you should pay closer attention to this post:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Twelve posts have been moved to AAH. Most were not rude, but simply off-topic. Please remember that this thread is for the discussion of the Shroud of Turin, not the discussion of the discussion of the Shroud. Posts regarding people's behavior on other forums or their motives for posting are not appropriate to the topic. Thank you all for your courtesies.

Posted By:Loss Leader

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Sorry, it's not credible at all. The Shroud was first attested to in 1390. Leonardo da Vinci wasn't born until 1452—over 60 years later.

Leonardo has always been considered to be a man ahead of his time.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Sorry, it's not credible at all. The Shroud was first attested to in 1390. Leonardo da Vinci wasn't born until 1452—over 60 years later.

AIUI the theory is that after the shroud was denounced as a fake the family that owned it commissioned da Vinci to make a more convincing one, and then produced that as if it was the same one they'd originally displayed. Or something. In the documentary I saw on it the case made consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence but it did hang together as a coherent story, with a timeline consistent with da Vinci's dates of birth and death.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

AIUI the theory is that after the shroud was denounced as a fake the family that owned it commissioned da Vinci to make a more convincing one, and then produced that as if it was the same one they'd originally displayed. Or something. In the documentary I saw on it the case made consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence but it did hang together as a coherent story, with a timeline consistent with da Vinci's dates of birth and death.

In other words, a totally fictional story.

Hans

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

In other words, a totally fictional story.

Hans

Now that you've disproven the Da Vinci hypothesis, that makes the Authenticity argument more likely, right?

Right?

[/Jabba Mode]

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Now that you've disproven the Da Vinci hypothesis, that makes the Authenticity argument more likely, right?

Right?

[/Jabba Mode]

I know you are joking, but this is actually essential to debate, about any topic.

Debaters unable to defend their own claim often concentrate on trying to discredit the claim of the opposition. However, there is only one situation where this may strengthen your own claim: In the few cases where there are arguably only two alternatives.

Case in point: Jabba's attempt to discredit the carbon dating. While this is partly brought on by skeptic's position that the carbon dating closes the debate, the fact remains that even if the carbon dating were, for whatever reason, to be rejected, it would not really strengthen the claim for authenticy, because there are so many other alternatives.

Hans

[Garrette]

I understand and absolutely agree. It is probably the single point that is most frustratingly difficult to get across even in person-to-person discussions I have outside the internet.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I know you are joking, but this is actually essential to debate, about any topic.

Debaters unable to defend their own claim often concentrate on trying to discredit the claim of the opposition. However, there is only one situation where this may strengthen your own claim: In the few cases where there are arguably only two alternatives.

Case in point: Jabba's attempt to discredit the carbon dating. While this is partly brought on by skeptic's position that the carbon dating closes the debate, the fact remains that even if the carbon dating were, for whatever reason, to be rejected, it would not really strengthen the claim for authenticy, because there are so many other alternatives.

Hans

That is exactly what these jokers do.

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/somesay.htm
Here are their defenses:

Some Say . . .

• the images are Jacques deMolay
  
• the images are of Leonardo da Vinci, created by him
  
• the images are painted
  
• there are coin images on the eyes of the Shroud face
  
• old blood always turns black and the blood on the Shroud of Turin is red
  
• the December 2005 special on the History Channel was inaccurate
  
• there were many painted shrouds in the medieval era
  
• the man on the shroud is too tall
  
• the shroud contradicts the Gospels

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

Notice the remarkable correlation between the two halves. And the clear demonstration to anyone not blind (or blinded by dogma) that the image simply wouldn't look like that if had actually come from contact with the curving surface of the face.

Or lying down.

This is one thing that I always find amazing. Why is his hair lying on his shoulders? If he were lying on his back, it would be falling away.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I know you are joking, but this is actually essential to debate, about any topic.

Debaters unable to defend their own claim often concentrate on trying to discredit the claim of the opposition. However, there is only one situation where this may strengthen your own claim: In the few cases where there are arguably only two alternatives.

Case in point: Jabba's attempt to discredit the carbon dating. While this is partly brought on by skeptic's position that the carbon dating closes the debate, the fact remains that even if the carbon dating were, for whatever reason, to be rejected, it would not really strengthen the claim for authenticy, because there are so many other alternatives.

Hans

Completely agree, and at times in this thread I've been a little concerned that people may have thought I was banging on about the C14 far too much, as if I thought it was 100% definitive (I was "banging" on about it to Jabba from very early in this thread). But my position on the C14 has always been (as you just said) that shroud believers like Jabba have to get past the C14 before they can make viable claims about any other issues. That is ...

... the C14 is not 100% infallible. It may even one day be proved wrong. But if that ever happens, then after the C14 there are a whole mass of other reasons why all the other shroud claims are almost certainly wrong.

So in that sense, the C14 is only the first hurdle. Though it is quite a large hurdle, since it's genuinely backed up by modern research science.

Trouble is, Jabba and his fellow shroud believers can't get past that first hurdle. In fact they do not even appear to understand or see that hurdle at all, even though it looms in front of them like mount Everest.

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Or lying down.

This is one thing that I always find amazing. Why is his hair lying on his shoulders? If he were lying on his back, it would be falling away.

Here's a quote from me from the first page of this thread:

"Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time."

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Here's a quote from me from the first page of this thread:

"Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time."

Was that first guy's name really Kevin Moron?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Here's a quote from me from the first page of this thread:

"Yes, but the shroudies have an answer for that, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg at about 1:10.

I wish it were a joke.

Ward

P.S. I seem to post this link every time the shroud comes up in a thread. Sorry for the repetition, but it delights me each time."

I am astounded at every re-watch of that video, though admittedly I could not make it all the way through this time. The lady who talks about the image being projected on the shroud as it is held above and below the body without touching it is typical of the believer mindset. They are in essence saying: Yes, the image does match the characteristics of a painted image, but black holes exist, therefore AUTHENTIC!

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Was that first guy's name really Kevin Moron?

As humorous as that would be, I think it's Kevin Moran.

His comments don't make the misspelling inappropriate, though. Are the fibers really 1/10 the thickness of a human hair?

I have other comments about his "observations," but I don't want to help Jabba derail. I'll just reiterate my previous post: That video is typical of the believer mindset: Damn the evidence! Full speed ahead!

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Garrette

As humorous as that would be, I think it's Kevin Moran.

OK, right, it is "MorAn". The video blurs the "a". It really looked like an "o".

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Who, besides Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Gabriel Vial are the expert "examiners" that we should expect to recognize a patch prior to the cutting, or prior to the conservation effort?
--- Jabba

Jabba, how many do you need?

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Remember, an "invisible" patch is always made up of threads that are taken from other parts of the original cloth (so it matches perfectly). So if the part that was carbon-dated was indeed an invisible patch (and it wasn't), that means that the threads harvested from elsewhere on the shroud are also from the 14th century. Either way you look at it, it's 14th C.Ward

I have the impression Jabba never went to the invisible weave sites I posted up.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Garrette

As humorous as that would be, I think it's Kevin Moran.

It's not this Kevin Moran, is it?

http://www.amazon.com/Sabotage-Kevin...ds=kevin+moran

I sure hope not.

[Jabba]

You guys,

- The debate at the moment amounts to the 2nd round of our “re-weave bout.”

- In the model of debate I’m trying to develop, a “round” isn’t over till it’s over -- i.e. we don’t need to finish a round in order to move on to the next… Basically, either side is always free to go back, re-new the specific issue and change its mind.
- And also, the number of rounds is unlimited…



- Our first round was dedicated to the rough homogeneity between the trace elements found on the greater Shroud, and those found on the Raes sample -- and the implications of that finding upon the expected trace elements of the C14 sample.
- In that first round, I concede that the apparent “rough” homogeneity of trace elements between the Raes sample and the larger cloth is, in fact, significant evidence AGAINST the “patch,” or “invisible re-weave,” hypothesis -- Antonacci seems to know what he’s talking about. But then, so far, 1) there doesn’t seem to be any trace element measurements on the C14 sample itself; 2) we’re unable to find Raes’ actual numbers so as to see how they relate to the standard deviations within the two sets of data; 3) we don’t know what “rough” means; and, 4) we don’t know to what extent trace elements tend to vary between different bodies of water -- nor specifically between bodies of water in 16th century Europe and 1st century Palestine.
- Consequently, even though this rough homogeneity does, in my opinion, make for significant evidence against the patch theory -- we can’t really nail it down just yet. To me, there is still significant room for doubt. In my opinion, you guys ARE WINNING the first round -- but then, the first round isn’t over …



- The second round of our re-weave bout has been dedicated to how a patch could possibly have made it past all the different experts examining it prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts. So far, the following is the best I can do for an explanation. This round seems more like a “draw” to me so far, but that could be my bias speaking.

1. We still don’t know what tests were used -- nor where they were used -- in the examinations (prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts) wherein the sample area was accepted as part of the original cloth.

2. There were all sorts of emotionality afoot amongst the scientists preceding the cutting; the protocols were egregiously abbreviated; and, after all those years working out the details, it still took Gonella and Riggi 2 hours to decide exactly where to cut.

3. So far, it seems to me that Flury-Lemberg is the only “examiner” that needs to be taken seriously. The rest, even Ghiberti, seem little more than “on-lookers.” As for the guys at the C14 labs, there is no indication that they were on the lookout for evidence of a patch -- and personally, I have no idea whether or not any of their various tests would have raised any red flags.

4. Apparently, Flury-Lemberg and Joe Marino are not referring to the same process re invisible re-weave. F-L is referring to “inweaving” (See http://shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf), whereas JM is referring to “French weaving.” (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf.)

5. The kind of repair to which JM refers is claimed to be truly invisible under a microscope, and also from the back of the cloth. The kind of repair to which F-L refers is said to be visible under a microscope on the front side and obvious to the naked eye on the back side.

6. In her examinations, F-L would have expected any re-weaving to be obvious from the back. Perhaps, in those examinations of the cloth, never seeing anything obvious on the back, she naturally concluded that there was no patch, and looked no further…

7. All of us are subject to bias -- as are our conclusions. Surely JM wants to believe that his earlier conclusions re the invisible patch were correct. F-L would probably have similar desires re her earlier conclusions.


--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

You guys,

- The debate at the moment amounts to the 2nd round of our “re-weave bout.”

<drivel>

No, it doesn't. It amounts to this:

Reality: The Shroud of Turin is an artefact of the 14th century.


Jabba: 'Tis not! Tis not!

Meh.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Jabba

You guys,

- The debate at the moment amounts to the 2nd round of our “re-weave bout.”

- In the model of debate I’m trying to develop, a “round” isn’t over till it’s over <snip>

I think the ref counted to ten a long time ago.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

<snip>

5. The kind of repair to which JM refers is claimed to be truly invisible under a microscope, and also from the back of the cloth. The kind of repair to which F-L refers is said to be visible under a microscope on the front side and obvious to the naked eye on the back side.

<snip>

It defies understanding that you would believe that people would be able to do anything at all that would either require a microscope to detect or be invisible even when using one without themselves having access to at least that level of technology.

It's a truly breathtaking failure of the ability to think critically.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...- The second round of our re-weave bout has been dedicated to how a patch could possibly have made it past all the different experts examining it prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts. So far, the following is the best I can do for an explanation. This round seems more like a “draw” to me so far, but that could be my bias speaking. ...

3. So far, it seems to me that Flury-Lemberg is the only “examiner” that needs to be taken seriously. The rest, even Ghiberti, seem little more than “on-lookers.” As for the guys at the C14 labs, there is no indication that they were on the lookout for evidence of a patch -- and personally, I have no idea whether or not any of their various tests would have raised any red flags.

4. Apparently, Flury-Lemberg and Joe Marino are not referring to the same process re invisible re-weave. F-L is referring to “inweaving” (See http://shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf), whereas JM is referring to “French weaving.” (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf.)

5. The kind of repair to which JM refers is claimed to be truly invisible under a microscope, and also from the back of the cloth. The kind of repair to which F-L refers is said to be visible under a microscope on the front side and obvious to the naked eye on the back side.

6. In her examinations, F-L would have expected any re-weaving to be obvious from the back. Perhaps, in those examinations of the cloth, never seeing anything obvious on the back, she naturally concluded that there was no patch, and looked no further…

7. All of us are subject to bias -- as are our conclusions. Surely JM wants to believe that his earlier conclusions re the invisible patch were correct. F-L would probably have similar desires re her earlier conclusions.


--- Jabba

Jabba, you have been told over and over again the invisible weave explained in your links (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf referred to a technique using threads from the original fabric.

Why even bring it up again?
Such a patch would not affect the dating, obviously.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No, it doesn't. It amounts to this:

Reality: The Shroud of Turin is an artefact of the 14th century.


Jabba: 'Tis not! Tis not!

Meh.

Don't forget the un-evidenced claims of blood on the cloth.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Don't forget the un-evidenced claims of blood on the cloth.

Silly me!

I can't believe I forgot the bluuuuuurd. That's my favourite part.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Silly me!

I can't believe I forgot the bluuuuuurd. That's my favourite part.

Then you might want to avoid the shroud........
Unless you like iron oxide and mercury sulphide instead.

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Jabba, you have been told over and over again the invisible weave explained in your links (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf referred to a technique using threads from the original fabric.

Why even bring it up again?
Such a patch would not affect the dating, obviously.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Jabba sent the links explaining how to create an "invisible" patch (which is still not invisible). His own links explain why the threads in the patch must be representative of the entire cloth. It makes no sense that he continues to A) believe that there's an invisible patch and B) believe that even if there were, that it would effect the carbon dating.

Ward

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Jabba

You guys,

- The debate at the moment amounts to the 2nd round of our “re-weave bout.”

- In the model of debate I’m trying to develop, ....

No! How many times do you have to be told?

You do not get to decide how other people post their replies. You are not here taking charge and organising everyone.

You simply do not have any honest genuine evidence. Absolutely none. When are you going to do the honest thing and admit that? It's been pointed out to you in detail at least 70 or 80 times after all!!

Until you can be honest about it, there nothing left to discuss - you are totally stuck at the first fence and unable to even attempt any coherent argument against the C14. And you can't even muster any credible argument for a patch either .

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Jabba sent the links explaining how to create an "invisible" patch (which is still not invisible). His own links explain why the threads in the patch must be representative of the entire cloth. It makes no sense that he continues to A) believe that there's an invisible patch and B) believe that even if there were, that it would effect the carbon dating.

Ward

Actually, I'm kind of fascinated by this. Note that the claim is that there is a 1400 BCE era cloth patch put in a piece of material that is 1400 years older than it.

I don't know a lot about cloth, but I do know that cloth changes when it ages.

So how did the people who patched the cloth using material from 1400 make it indistinguishable from cloth that is 1400 years older?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Our first round was dedicated to the rough homogeneity between the trace elements found on the greater Shroud, and those found on the Raes sample -- and the implications of that finding upon the expected trace elements of the C14 sample.

No. The first issue is and was the C14 dating itself. You tried to argue that it was flawed. One of the arguments you used was the people in the labs being liars. You have come to realise that you have no argument whatsoever against the C14 dating. Now you are trying to pretend that these discussions never happened.

I ask you again to try to step back and forget your emotional attachment to this subject. Look at your behaviour as if it were someone else's behaviour and tell me what you think.

Quote:

This round seems more like a “draw” to me so far, but that could be my bias speaking.

Your bias and your careful ignoring of much of the evidence which has been brought to your attention, yes.

[JimOfAllTrades]

I imagine this conversation:

Prosecuting Attorney: We know that Smith killed Jones because we have three videos shot by three different people who were all present at the time. All three videos clearly show Smith aiming the gun, pulling the trigger, and the shot hitting Jones.

Jabba: But maybe someone else shot him.

Prosecuting Attorney: The bullet matches Jones gun.

Jabba: But maybe someone else has an identical gun, right down to the microscopic level.

Prosecuting Attorney: None of the videos show anyone else shooting.

Jabba: But maybe this unknown person stood behind Jones, put his arm up right beside Jones so it is really not Jones' arm holding the gun in the video.

Prosecuting Attorney: The video doesn't show anyone standing behind Jones, and the arm in the video is wearing a shirt and coat identical the ones Jones is wearing.

Jabba: But the unknown person may have a shirt and jacket identical to Jones', right down to the microscopic level.

Prosecuting Attorney: None of the other people in the room at the time saw anyone else wearing a similar coat and jacket.

Jabba: But they really weren't looking, especially behind Jones. Only one person really went behind Jones at all and he just may have been fooled by the jacket.

At this point the Prosecuting Attorney is deafened by the sound of the Judge, Jury, and everyone else in the courtroom doing a simultaneous headsmack.

[Giordano]

Jabba, this is silly. People have provided convincing, multiple facts that invalidate what is basically your gut need to believe the Shroud. Even the Vatican agrees with the skeptics. Your arguments wouldn't prevail even in a court of law, let alone in a scientific venue.

So, is there any fact that would convince you the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Christ? Any revelation? If no, why bother trying to rationalize your belief; just believe it!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Jabba

You guys,

* Jabba, j- sorry yadda, yadda *

- The second round of our re-weave bout has been dedicated to how a patch could possibly have made it past all the different experts examining it prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts. So far, the following is the best I can do for an explanation. This round seems more like a “draw” to me so far, but that could be my bias speaking.

OK, you have no arms and no legs left, but

[Monty Python]Let's call it a draw[/Monty Python]

Quote:

1. We still don’t know what tests were used -- nor where they were used -- in the examinations (prior to the cutting, prior to the testing and prior to the conservation efforts) wherein the sample area was accepted as part of the original cloth.

The samples were accepted by the professionals as adequate.

Quote:

2. There were all sorts of emotionality afoot amongst the scientists preceding the cutting; the protocols were egregiously abbreviated; and, after all those years working out the details, it still took Gonella and Riggi 2 hours to decide exactly where to cut.

The samples were accepted by the professionals as adequate.
The results were consistent from all the labs.

Quote:

3. So far, it seems to me that Flury-Lemberg is the only “examiner” that needs to be taken seriously. The rest, even Ghiberti, seem little more than “on-lookers.” As for the guys at the C14 labs, there is no indication that they were on the lookout for evidence of a patch -- and personally, I have no idea whether or not any of their various tests would have raised any red flags.

The samples were accepted by the professionals as adequate.
The results were consistent from all the labs.
That you, a layman, have no idea is irrelevant.

Quote:

4. Apparently, Flury-Lemberg and Joe Marino are not referring to the same process re invisible re-weave. F-L is referring to “inweaving” (See http://shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf), whereas JM is referring to “French weaving.” (See #’s 39 and 43 from http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf, and http://www.shrouduniversity.com/fren...uctionbook.pdf.)

None of which would escape notice.

Quote:

5. The kind of repair to which JM refers is claimed to be truly invisible under a microscope, and also from the back of the cloth. The kind of repair to which F-L refers is said to be visible under a microscope on the front side and obvious to the naked eye on the back side.

Obvious is the keyword.
The only reasonably invisible patch uses fibres from the same cloth. It would not have thrown the carbon dating off.

Quote:

6. In her examinations, F-L would have expected any re-weaving to be obvious from the back. Perhaps, in those examinations of the cloth, never seeing anything obvious on the back, she naturally concluded that there was no patch, and looked no further…

Implausible level of incompetence. A specialist looking for patches will not make assumptions. He or she will make sure.

Quote:

7. All of us are subject to bias -- as are our conclusions. Surely JM wants to believe that his earlier conclusions re the invisible patch were correct. F-L would probably have similar desires re her earlier conclusions.

Surely? Probably?

- Speculation, Jabba. Pure and unadulterated speculation.

You are wasting everybody's time, including your own.

Hans

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by IanS

... at times in this thread I've been a little concerned that people may have thought I was banging on about the C14 far too much, as if I thought it was 100% definitive (I was "banging" on about it to Jabba from very early in this thread). But my position on the C14 has always been (as you just said) that shroud believers like Jabba have to get past the C14 before they can make viable claims about any other issues. ...

I think your very proper insistence on the dating is one of the notes of sanity in this on-going discussion.