- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Hans.
I wont bore you with it, but there is a long complex history of the shroud dating, which started years before it happened, indeed it is bizarre in many ways in just how many "politics" and ego issues dominated from start to end. From the inception by Gove (inventor of AMS) who openly stated that the shroud was a fake, and that the only point in dating it was to publicise AMS. Few seem to realise that at the time had very little history of testing fabric at all - so the lack of other support for Fanti and Rogers dating methods can hardly be held against them. But the lack of AMS experience with textil meant those labs had very little experience of doing it, and so it showed.
Endless meetings and correspondence flowed.
Goves dismissive attitude to all others concerned such as the very respected Los alamos, JPL etc physicists was breathtaking. He was determined to remove all of STURP for the simple reason they were in essence pro authenticity as a result of their efforts (although christians were few amongst them) and he regarded them as second raters and actually bragged in his own book that he succeeded in seeing them off.
But as I contend, that also made the daters blind. There was nobody left on the dating teams who had any experience of shroud physio chemistry. Alas the daters saw Gove off too in the end. Whilst he remained involved , Rochester was removed from the labs, because in the battle of Ego, Halls even beat Gove.
Far from the orderly peer revied plan that sturp had used there was just chaos. Nobody on the day even what they would sample..
Of your entire post, the following is what I am trying to publicise: you summarise my point with the below. (although it was not just images, these are spectral, so chemistry indicators, and some raes sample analysis was known) as was an indicative date, more of that later
Which is as true as it is damning of what the daters did.
The problems with that area of the shroud were known in 1978 from such as Xray and UV, which is indicative of the underlying chemistry. Schwalbe Rogers noted problems with the Raes sample.
Of archeologists It was not just meacham who had urged caution , and that proper protocol be followed,mutiple locations, chemical characterisation and so on, but also he stated that a carbon test was never a deciding factor even then. It was just a piece of evidence. Too many errors have been seen. The AMS labs were not archeology daters! they were Isotope counters.
At the time another archeologist who sadly died early in the saga that has since ensued - Maria Siliato warned against tests in the region they chose on the strength of STURP findings. Adler voiced the opinion that a single test and tests near the edge were a problem too. And so on. So many voices. But the daters cut themselves off from all of those urging caution.
All I ask people to do is study sturp, and the history of the dating. It gives the background to understand Marino and Benford, Rogers 2005 etc.
The reviewers became public because Marino and Benford chose to make them so.
Several documents refer to them. Like all else it is on Shroud.com see a link below. Rogers stepped in to answer the queries, partly because of RC refusal to publish, but ended supporting Marino and Benford, but it did not sway RC journal
Notice 1/ who the reviewers are!!! Here are those who comment.
Gove, Jull, Damon, Evin, Testore, Vial. Shroudies will notice all the red flags.
Gove was the instigator of the test "to publicise AMS" and remover of everyone who knew anything about the shroud or thought it even might be real...
Jull and Damon were both Arizona lab, and lead authors of the Nature paper.
Evin , testore , vial , were the appointed "textile experts" and one the sample cutter at the testing . Whilst they knew textiles they did not know the shroud, certainly not the chemistry of it.
The fundamental question posed by Marino/Benford was. "did you make a hash of sampling or testing it". Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Not surprising they answered "no". Their reputations relied on it.
For sure the paper needs to have a case for the defence, like Jull, it is entirely proper they should comment , but the balance of reviewers must not be involved in the test itself. You cannot mark your own homework as they did. Also include such as Meacham and others from the stance of chemistry and reweave and Rogers as the one who knew more about shroud chemistry than anyone else. Notice they avoided STURP like the plague.
If you look at the reviews.
Gove uses the farcical idea "that it would assume the labs homogenized the tests". Clearly from the data now published, they had! They just hid it for 20 years, until legal process revealed the homogeneity was an illusion. (although in Goves defence I suspect he was not involved in the data "manipuation". I wager he knew about it)
Testore, vial etc simply make the claim it was representative of the shroud, not referring to the chemistry or evidence it wasnt. How does "oh yes it is" "oh no it isnt" add to the science? After all, they took the samples. They could not admit to having muffed it. If only they had looked at the previous science!
Several reviewers said it was "subjective" when as you note it was actually hard evidence from 1978 that showed the chemistry was different stuff, and even Rogers in 1982 had said there was cotton WITHIN raes threads that was not there anywhere else. Hardly subjective then. Proving they had not even looked up the basics.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf
There is also the unauthorized Arizona RC test long before by Rossman, which dated two ends of a thread as 200 AD and 1200AD. Arizona later denied they had done it, but Rossman stated he had, after which he stayed silent. It was clearly not peer reviewed, but why would he lie? Meacham talks about more about that test somewhere.
The history of the shroud RC test gets more bizarre the more you study it. To me it was a case of "when ego trumped science" It was not "sturp kind of looked at it", then it was dated. The answer was it was studied in massive detail for decades. And one muffed test was allowed to dominate media, which as meacham said could never be definitive anyway.
I doubt if you are aware that Ramsay - Oxford - now accepts the test was seriously flawed, and that much other evidence contradicts it. Ie the jury is out. Tite accepts it is a crucified man.
What I also urge you to do is study the forensic correspondence of the sudarium.
I wont bore you with it, but there is a long complex history of the shroud dating, which started years before it happened, indeed it is bizarre in many ways in just how many "politics" and ego issues dominated from start to end. From the inception by Gove (inventor of AMS) who openly stated that the shroud was a fake, and that the only point in dating it was to publicise AMS. Few seem to realise that at the time had very little history of testing fabric at all - so the lack of other support for Fanti and Rogers dating methods can hardly be held against them. But the lack of AMS experience with textil meant those labs had very little experience of doing it, and so it showed.
Endless meetings and correspondence flowed.
Goves dismissive attitude to all others concerned such as the very respected Los alamos, JPL etc physicists was breathtaking. He was determined to remove all of STURP for the simple reason they were in essence pro authenticity as a result of their efforts (although christians were few amongst them) and he regarded them as second raters and actually bragged in his own book that he succeeded in seeing them off.
But as I contend, that also made the daters blind. There was nobody left on the dating teams who had any experience of shroud physio chemistry. Alas the daters saw Gove off too in the end. Whilst he remained involved , Rochester was removed from the labs, because in the battle of Ego, Halls even beat Gove.
Far from the orderly peer revied plan that sturp had used there was just chaos. Nobody on the day even what they would sample..
Of your entire post, the following is what I am trying to publicise: you summarise my point with the below. (although it was not just images, these are spectral, so chemistry indicators, and some raes sample analysis was known) as was an indicative date, more of that later
Which is as true as it is damning of what the daters did.
The problems with that area of the shroud were known in 1978 from such as Xray and UV, which is indicative of the underlying chemistry. Schwalbe Rogers noted problems with the Raes sample.
Of archeologists It was not just meacham who had urged caution , and that proper protocol be followed,mutiple locations, chemical characterisation and so on, but also he stated that a carbon test was never a deciding factor even then. It was just a piece of evidence. Too many errors have been seen. The AMS labs were not archeology daters! they were Isotope counters.
At the time another archeologist who sadly died early in the saga that has since ensued - Maria Siliato warned against tests in the region they chose on the strength of STURP findings. Adler voiced the opinion that a single test and tests near the edge were a problem too. And so on. So many voices. But the daters cut themselves off from all of those urging caution.
All I ask people to do is study sturp, and the history of the dating. It gives the background to understand Marino and Benford, Rogers 2005 etc.
The reviewers became public because Marino and Benford chose to make them so.
Several documents refer to them. Like all else it is on Shroud.com see a link below. Rogers stepped in to answer the queries, partly because of RC refusal to publish, but ended supporting Marino and Benford, but it did not sway RC journal
Notice 1/ who the reviewers are!!! Here are those who comment.
Gove, Jull, Damon, Evin, Testore, Vial. Shroudies will notice all the red flags.
Gove was the instigator of the test "to publicise AMS" and remover of everyone who knew anything about the shroud or thought it even might be real...
Jull and Damon were both Arizona lab, and lead authors of the Nature paper.
Evin , testore , vial , were the appointed "textile experts" and one the sample cutter at the testing . Whilst they knew textiles they did not know the shroud, certainly not the chemistry of it.
The fundamental question posed by Marino/Benford was. "did you make a hash of sampling or testing it". Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Not surprising they answered "no". Their reputations relied on it.
For sure the paper needs to have a case for the defence, like Jull, it is entirely proper they should comment , but the balance of reviewers must not be involved in the test itself. You cannot mark your own homework as they did. Also include such as Meacham and others from the stance of chemistry and reweave and Rogers as the one who knew more about shroud chemistry than anyone else. Notice they avoided STURP like the plague.
If you look at the reviews.
Gove uses the farcical idea "that it would assume the labs homogenized the tests". Clearly from the data now published, they had! They just hid it for 20 years, until legal process revealed the homogeneity was an illusion. (although in Goves defence I suspect he was not involved in the data "manipuation". I wager he knew about it)
Testore, vial etc simply make the claim it was representative of the shroud, not referring to the chemistry or evidence it wasnt. How does "oh yes it is" "oh no it isnt" add to the science? After all, they took the samples. They could not admit to having muffed it. If only they had looked at the previous science!
Several reviewers said it was "subjective" when as you note it was actually hard evidence from 1978 that showed the chemistry was different stuff, and even Rogers in 1982 had said there was cotton WITHIN raes threads that was not there anywhere else. Hardly subjective then. Proving they had not even looked up the basics.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf
There is also the unauthorized Arizona RC test long before by Rossman, which dated two ends of a thread as 200 AD and 1200AD. Arizona later denied they had done it, but Rossman stated he had, after which he stayed silent. It was clearly not peer reviewed, but why would he lie? Meacham talks about more about that test somewhere.
The history of the shroud RC test gets more bizarre the more you study it. To me it was a case of "when ego trumped science" It was not "sturp kind of looked at it", then it was dated. The answer was it was studied in massive detail for decades. And one muffed test was allowed to dominate media, which as meacham said could never be definitive anyway.
I doubt if you are aware that Ramsay - Oxford - now accepts the test was seriously flawed, and that much other evidence contradicts it. Ie the jury is out. Tite accepts it is a crucified man.
What I also urge you to do is study the forensic correspondence of the sudarium.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
