Posted on 08/11/2008 9:01:59 AM PDT by Soliton
I didn’t realize Jesus had a Platypus, are they indigenous to the region?
Was it a pet or kept for religious reasons?
It was a pet Jesus would take out at parties and say..”Look what Dad made, isn’t this silly?”
As long as it wasn’t for some obscure ritual....ok.
Maybe this will refresh your memory.
Point-by-point discussion of how the work quoted in Science & Vie (not peer-reviewed, despite your insistence on such, btw; how's the double-standard working out for you?) only addresses strawman issues of previous attempts at making an image on cloth, and does not mimic any of the physical or chemical properties of the *real* Shroud.
Cheers!
First, the two references he cites are STURP papers that were written with an obvious pro-authenticity bias and lack of scientific objectivity; although published in legitimate scientific journals, their methods and conclusions are suspect and I claim they are exercises in pseudoscience; McCrone conclusively refuted the conclusions of these two papers in his book. Second, these papers contain no data or analysis to support a 1st century date using any scientifically-recognized age determination method.
Hear that? He admits that the articles published which support the authenticity of the Shroud have been published in legitimate scientific journals.
He then claims that they are exercises in pseudoscience, based on a NON-PEER-REVIEWED work.
And he claims that these papers did not do *any* scientifically-recognized age-determination method.
That's odd -- the use of controls is a legitimate scientific method, as is the use of kinetics: in fact, the basis or radiocarbon dating is the known time-dependent rate of nuclear decay.
The reason for the vanillin testing was that the custodians of the Shroud refused to release more of the Shroud for testing. (Hint: how do you prepare a sample for C-14 testing?)
So they had to use other methods -- and methods which would allow for controls.
*Snerk*
Here's the second: I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it. No. 2 is certainly my reason for not making a Shroud. And so far, no one has indeed taken the time and expense to duplicate it.
Hear that? Nobody has been able to duplicate the Shroud. But that's because it's so obviously a fraud that it's not worth it to demonstrate it.
*Snerk*. Atheists and skeptics galore would shower you in fame and money if you were able to duplicate the Shroud in a way which conclusively showed the original to be a forgery. But it's so obviously false, why bother?
McCrone said it -- I believe it -- that settles it.
Pwned.
The STURP scientists are dismissed as biased:
Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.
Compare this with the strict objectivity of those who are skeptical of the Shroud. This is your own author of your own paper talking about himself and those with whom he disagrees:
As it is, educated, informed, and rational individuals don't believe the Shroud is authentic, tend to look on the controversy with either disgust or boredom (as I certainly do), and wish to get on with their lives. The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics.
This is called ad hominem and has no place in science or logic.
And one more laugh riot:
As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.
This is called "appeal to authority" and has no place in science.
Whereas the claims that the samples taken for C-14 dating were from a non-representative sample of the Shroud are backed up by photomicrographs (hard to see with the naked eye, even if you *are* a distinguished expert) -- and as opposed to the paper you posted, which contains an argument by authority, the photomicrographs have been posted rather than just mentioned.
Incidentally, if you read the rest of the papers from the site you quoted, you'd have seen several discussions of the problems of accuracy in C-14 dating, due to everyting from contamination of historical artifacts before they were ever dug up, to kinetics of chemical reactions which happen over time and mess up the isotope ratios.
I don't see that these factors are even *mentioned* in the Source material you are quoting.
Why do you leave out pertinent discussion from your own websites?
Cheers!
They have been published in a few not by hundreds of scientists. That’s why this one got so much attention. Rogers claims that the two threads he had came from the area where the c-14 samples were taken. Those samples were taken originally under highly controlled circumstances by trained scientists while being observed by Vatican representatives. The original samples were destroyed by the c-14 testing. There is no evidence for the threads provenance except for Rogers and his source for the couple of threads he obtained.
Unlike McCone who worked with state of the art equipment in a professional quality laboratory, Rogers conducted his “experiments” unsupervised in his home laboratory.
That this passes as science in a peer reviewed journal is a sorry joke. But, I guess there are believers everywhere and if you shop a paper around long enough you will find one who is an editor of a journal. As mentioned in the article, the contamination contention was rejected by the journal “Radiocarbon”.
Where are the specific links to the peer-review journals which substantiate McCrone's work?
Where are his control groups?
Where is the objective measurements as opposed to "I can personally attest to"?
Rogers claims that the two threads he had came from the area where the c-14 samples were taken. Those samples were taken originally under highly controlled circumstances by trained scientists while being observed by Vatican representatives.
This does nothing to confirm, nor to refute, a single word of McCrone's claims. Nor does it provide a scintilla of evidence to back up your claims for him.
McCrone made a claim, and I asked you to supply independent verification.
You have not done so, nor have you posted a single link to a single indpendent, objective, peer-reviewed study which does so.
Attempting to change the subject will not help.
The original samples were destroyed by the c-14 testing.
Which -- D'oh -- explains why there has been a paucity of further C-14 testing.
They don't want to run out of original material.
But this again is a non-sequitur.
McCrone made specific claims of analysis which *proved* that the image was due to certain pigments.
Talking about the sample preparation for a different test in a different laboratory, using a different sample, does nothing to substantiate his claims.
There is no evidence for the threads provenance except for Rogers and his source for the couple of threads he obtained.
That still doesn't help McCrone's claims.
Unlike McCone who worked with state of the art equipment in a professional quality laboratory, Rogers conducted his “experiments” unsupervised in his home laboratory.
That still doesn't substantiate anything McCrone claims.
"Professional quality laboratory" : there goes that old "argument from authority" again.
That this passes as science in a peer reviewed journal is a sorry joke.
You have supplied no scientifically acceptable evidence as yet that McCrone's results are either
a) genuine
b) reproducible
c) objective
d) controlled
e) uncontaminated
f) relevant
b) peer-reviewed
ad hominem has no place in science.
But, I guess there are believers everywhere and if you shop a paper around long enough you will find one who is an editor of a journal.
This is a non-sequitur. Can you substantiate McCrone's claims in a peer-reviewed journal, or not?
And did he use any objective methods, controls, or perform sensitivity analysis?
As mentioned in the article, the contamination contention was rejected by the journal “Radiocarbon”.
So what? Since you quoted McCrone, your job is to substantiate his findings.
Cheers!
Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
Soliton's first comment on this thread is to insult and slur the late Raymond N. Rogers, a pyrology chemist who has published his work in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Read Soliton's comments on another Shroud thread If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
Thanks for the ping!
Schaefersman and other anti-Shroud people have asserted that. That is false. STURP samples have been lent to non-STURP scientists (including Walter C. McCrone, who was not a member). McCrone was requested by Raymond Rogers to examine the thread samples. However, in several publications, McCrone has claimed he examined the Shroud threads at the request of the Catholic Church! That is also false.
STURP has gotten very careful about who does get access after the problems they had with McCrone's refusal to return the samples he was entrusted with (per A. Adler, J. Heller, D.Ford, W. McCrone)—which he referred to in several articles as "my samples", his mounting them on mylar tape contrary to agreed protocols (per A. Adler, J. Heller), and the requirement of threats of a lawsuit to get him to release the final samples he retained from those he finally returned to STURP (per W. McCrone, S. Schafersman) when John Jackson and Eric Jumper "conned me out of them" (per W. McCrone, S. Schafersman) even though the samples were the property of the of Ex-King Umberto II under the custodianship of STURP (The Shroud and the samples were later willed to the Vatican along with the obligations in the STURP agreements). McCrone also violated his contract with STURP by refusing to submit his findings for peer review and publishing them in his own non-peer reviewed vanity magazine, The Microscope, of which he was the editor and publisher.
McCrone has been dishonest about claiming a membership in STURP. As I mentioned, McCrone has claimed he was a member of STURP, but he was not. McCrone was merely an ancillary researcher. Dishonest about small things, dishonest in important things.Here is a list of the members of STURP. Note who's name is missing.
Members of the Shroud of Turin Research Project:
Note: The researchers marked with an ‡ participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.
- Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation‡
- Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories‡
- John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories‡
- Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography‡
- Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography‡
- Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography‡
- Robert Bucklin, Harris County, Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
- Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.‡
- Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado‡
- Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories‡
- Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories‡
- J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories‡
- Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories‡
- Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories‡
- Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
- Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
- Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM‡
- Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
- Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation‡
- Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
- Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
- Roger Gilbert, Oriel Corporation
- Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation‡
- Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph‡
- John Heller, New England Institute
- John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy‡
- Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy‡
- Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory‡
- Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory‡
- Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories‡
- Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center‡
- Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios‡‡
These are the people that Schaefersman and Soliton would have you believe are "psuedoscientists" who are so incompetent that only microscopist McCrone is correct in his findings. Among them are two Jews, several Agnostics, and at least one Atheist, along with Catholics and Protestants.
It has been demonstrated to be a terrain map... it is not a photograph. It is now well understood science that the Shroud bears no light artifacts, no shadows, etc. The modality of however the image was created made the density of the image proportional with distance. This terrain map has aspects that make it appear to be a photograph.
Yes, I posted this article to FR three years ago and pinged the Shroud Ping list members to discuss it.
I think I'll pass; I don't care much for the rantings of close-minded bigots. Thanks for the offer, though.
" I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it." — Schaefersman
Hear that? Nobody has been able to duplicate the Shroud. But that's because it's so obviously a fraud that it's not worth it to demonstrate it."
I can think of at least 15 serious attempts to duplicate the Shroud in the last 20 years by various means—by Bas relief (by daubing with carbon, burnt umber, red umber, red ocher, and probably Okra, rubbing, brushing, blowing, charring, sweat, urine, etc.), painting (with burnt umber, red and yellow ocher, diluted blood, sweat, urine, etc.), camera obscura photography (using silver nitrate, Urine, albumin, etc.), Radiation (x-Ray, electric discharge, gamma radiation, radioactive die injection), Shadow bleaching (Overlaying painted glass with exposure to the sun), Gas effusion (various chemical exudation tests) and several even more esoteric attempts that I have forgotten . You can triple that number if you go back 50 years. All have failed.
This claim of Schaefersman shows his ignorance of the subject, especially almost yearly claims of someone having proved the Shroud a fake because someone has "recreated" it.
That's not quite true. The original cutting from the Shroud was cut into seven sub samples... two of which were discarded because of the observation of interloping fibers that did not match the Linen threads of the original (!).
The five remaining sub-samples were divided in the following manner (I shall designate the sub-samples as A through E, with A being closest to the edge of the shroud and E being closest to the center: Samples A and E were sent to the Arizona Lab—these furthest separated sub-samples had the greatest degree of variation between old and new linen and is the reason that the statistical analysis of the reported ages showed that they were so different that, statistically, they were NOT FROM THE SAME POPULATION!. Sub-sample B was sent to Oxford and sub-sample D was sent to Switzerland. Sub-samples A, B, D, and E were destroyed in C14 testing. What about sub-sample C? It was retained for future comparison.
The only "peer review" that may have been used in The Microscope was provided by McCrone Research, the publisher of the journal. It is not peer reviewed. McCrone was its editor and publisher. So, McCrone, the editor and boss of the whole shebang asks an employee to look at his article... right.
Translates to "Viennese reports of supernatural science in the arts."
Geologist Steven D. Schafersman claims to be both the Science Consultant and the Administrator of the The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website... which is merely his own vanity site. How can he be a consultant to himself?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.