Free Republic

McCain, liberal enough to have a shot in N.J.

George W. Bush won 46% of the vote in New Jersey in '04, so NJ should be a state Republicans can compete it regardless.

Tell ya what, Freepmail me the contents of #284 and #290, so I can see for myself.

Will do.

No wonder so many or her crew died

After seeing that video it astounded me to read that 400 men of her 1250 man crew survived. I was expecting something terrible to the degree of HMS Hood.

Which is why it was *your* post #290 which was deleted, not his.

That's what I've been trying to find out from the Religion Moderator privately. My guess is that you or someone else reported it and #296 to the Mod and that's all they checked, because if those two posts are unacceptable then there are some of Swordmaker's and yours that absolutely need to go. Heck, you yourself ought to be suspended.

Anyone who wants copies of my original posts can Freepmail me. Suffice it to say that if you believe the comments in 293 and 284 by Swordmaker are accurate you should see what I wrote in reply.

Have fun in the garage; after completely misstating the status of McCrone's work in mainstream science and the standing of his critics you deserve a rest.

They’re all peer-reviewed, and the claims to the contrary that have been made are complete garbage. Very foolish of me to take some people at their word, especially when it was so obvious that McCrone’s research, along with the Carbon 14 tests, were the only ones that had standing in the mainstream scientific and historical communities.

Swordmaker got sick of the unwarranted ad hominem. I've actually been *reading* the thread.

Swordmaker was the initiator of the ad hominem, and his conduct thoroughly reprehensible. You've taken the baton.

McCrone's work was published in peer-reviewed journals and has received the endorsement of mainstream scientists, internet falsehoods and ad hominems aside.

If you want to own up to your laziness in failing to find out which article by Rogers was actually been commented on and chastised for its unserious attitude towards research, I'm all ears, but until then there's little point in pretending to respond to it. This is what, the third time you've stamped your feet and tried to change the subject in a purported reply to the observation?

There was one man, David Stony, who wrote and sent a nomination of McCrone for the award. There is no evidence that the award was improperly awarded or undeserved. You’re completely making it up.

You were just baiting yourself, and it seems all you earned out of it was a lot of humiliation and loss of credit.

If your conduct represents the emotions and behavior a holy relic inspires in its believers, then the world might as well return it to the devil, for I can’t see Jesus having anything do with this thing.

Keep twisting yourself in circles. It would have been a lot easier just to admit you misunderstood what was being referred to, instead of dancing around accountability like a troll. It’s not like anyone is going to not notice that you didn’t know what was being talked about and were too lazy to follow a link and find out.

You should be less impressed, because grey_whiskers completely made it up.

McCrone published his findings in three different journals, all peer-reviewed -- The Microscope, Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst, and Accounts of Chemical Research. Claims to the contrary turn out to be false, which is little surprise to me since they never sounded right. http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

It's his results, and those of corroborating teams like the Carbon 14 testers, which are highly respected in the mainstream scientific community.

I was quoting an earlier paper than the one you supplied. Why?

Because you didn't know what the hell was being talked about, clearly, and were too lazy to follow the link and check.

Your assertion was that McCrone was not mainstream, which is complete bullocks and something you don't even attempt to back up.

And your attack on the ACS Award in Analytical Chemistry is ridiculous. From Cornell University's Department of Chemistry newsletter: "It has just been announced that Professor Fred W. McLafferty has won the prestigious American Chemical Society Award in Analytical Chemistry sponsored by the Fisher Scientific Company. This is the country's leading award in analytical chemistry. Pro- fessor George Morrison of our faculty won it in 1971. With the present award to Fred McLafferty we now have official recognition of what we have known all along— that our Department has one of the leading programs in analytical chemistry in the country, and two of the world's leading analytical chemists" newsletter

McCrone’s studies have been endorsed by the American Chemical Society, the leading publisher of peer-reviewed research journals in the chemical sciences. It is not the mainstream view of science that the Shroud was created by the carcass of a dead man, and the problems with the pro-Shroud research have been discussed ad nauseum.

Your bitch about the criticisms of Rogers’ methodology is silly, for the critics are referring to another article which is clearly explained on the link. And you speak of my “haste.” I won’t accuse you of deliberate omission like you try to insinuate me of — you’re just galled at Swordmaker’s exposure.

I’m not a scientist, I’m a layman citing the research and conclusions that the vast bulk of scientists respect.

I doubt there's much warrant for pardoning her. I think what leaves people agape is that there was still a "Witchcraft" law in Britain that she ended up being tried under, but according to the BBC "she was the last person in Britain to be jailed under the act, which was repealed in 1951 and replaced with the Fraudulent Mediums Act".

I don't have a problem with a Fraudulent Mediums Act, and this woman was definitely a fraud. What seems to have drawn special attention to her is that some of her clients were privy to state secrets which she ended up leaking in order to establish her bonafides.

While I think the author’s on to something, in that advanced weapons systems, medical care, and tactics, have decreased the risk of casualties and fatalities, I think he’s really off base comparing our current wars with WW2 or Korea. A better set of comparisons would be with Russia’s Afghan War and other guerrilla wars. Of the conflicts he listed I think only the 2006 Israeli operation in Lebanon is really comparable.

The pyrolysis mass spec was not done primarily to check vanillin, but to look for paint!....How could you refer to Rogers' pyrolysis mass spec and use it to 'refute' presence of vanillin, but NEGLECT TO MENTION THE MAIN POINT OF THE PAPER ???? T.W.N.F.P. !! (There was *no* f'ing paint!)

If you'd bothered to read the link I supplied, you'd find that the discussion was of a paper called "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin" published by Raymond Rogers in 2005. Vanillin, for example, is nowhere mentioned in this new article. As for this article, one major problem that I see with it from the getgo is that he uses "contaminated" fibers left over from McCrone's research, but only after they were "laboriously cleaned and prepared" by his wife. McCrone studied it prior to Mrs. Rogers' "laborious" cleaning and found paint pigments, something Rogers weirdly doesn't mention, and given the criticisms of his later paper for faulty and non-serious methodology you may take it for whatever you think it's worth.

I asked what *YOU* had to lose by admitting it -- why are you afraid of facing the fact that the Shroud wrapped a real dead body?

Nothing. But I don't consider it a fact since the mainstream scientific and historical community do not recognize it as one.

Game, set, and match. Buh-bye, troll. Thanks for playing. Cheers!

By now you're just trolling, and I don't know that it's worth my effort, but claiming McCrone is not mainstream is just internet key-hammering.

Of course McCrone is mainstream. He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a recognized expert in microscopy, a consultant on many different projects, and in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.

If it gives you satisfaction to believe that the Shroud represents an anonymous 14th century dead man, by all means think so, but mainstream science recognizes no body tissues on the shroud, only pigments of red ochre and vermilion. If you feel peeved at me arguing from competent and well-esteemed authority, well, I’m happy to be in their company. Not so thrilled though to have you imagining me masturbating. I’ll do without the back-story on that one.