Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh Mike, you must know by now that the carbon dating of the shroud was never refuted and your sources avoid reliable peer review like the plague. That should tell you that even they know that they are wrong.I have no idea who - if anyone reads these posts. Maybe nobody.
But it is time the record was set straight about the shroud, and the real science done in 1978.
1/ The 1978 sturp project was thoroughly professional. Unlike the later dating.
On the link you will find that the meetings over previous years yielded a peer reviewed plan.
The plan was executed as projected.
At least 20 papers were written (reviewed of course) - of which there is so much of it , that the central paper, Schwalbe and Rogers , only lists the scope of what was done and all the general conclusions. For the detail go to papers. For further detail and images of fibres and cloths, go to website images and books.
It also created a treasure trove of scans in natural light, UV, low energy XRAY etc, and a lot of fibre images all indexed and locations shown on photos in the database.
That is the master reference of what the shroud is. It is not a painting or artwork. The mark is inexplicable. It is real blood with real pathology.
The 1978 Scientific Examination
Sadly there is not room for all of the pictorial evidence to appear in papers. They are simply referrerd. And it is so wide ranging that beginners need books to make sense of it all
But also in that treasure trove an anomaly is noted. Rogers notes That the raes corner adjacent to the test sample contained cotton within the weave. (mentioned in Schwalbe and Rogers. The shroud itself has only a few surface fibres. That would become important later, as would the fact that the pictures show the later area sampled differs in UV, XRAY and visible light. It is clearly anomalous.
2/ Roll on to the most unprofessional "science" ever. The dating and daters.
Two years of meetings preceded it. And correspondence / minutes are available that can be read. It raised all sorts of issues including the need for multiple areas, for characterisation, for a blind controls and so on.
But instead of producing a peer reviewed test plan , identifying sample areas and processes, the daters failed to produce a plan and they marginalized everyone else, so most of the protocol was quietly forgotten or deliberately ignored..
The daters systematically excluded all of the people in STURP and anyone who had the a shred of belief in the authenticity. As a result the test team were blind about chemistry. Nobody was present or witnessing who knew anything of STURP science above. The daters were not and are not shroud scientists. They know little or nothing about it.
The test presided by Tite was a disaster from the off from the point of view of good science.
When they entered the room they had no idea of what they were going to sample!
how dare they? After all the professionalism of STURP, they were a disaster.They made it up as they went along. They picked the worst area possible. Consumate scientist rogers and meacham would have checked it before test, and agreed a detailed plan, and sample areas if they had been allowed.
Then a litany of failures. THere were three control samples present in the room, not just the two controls, and the shroud , put in cans.
So there is a legitimate concern of what was put in tubes? One sample was not used at all. It was all done away from camera and even basic weights and sizes did not add up. Who knows what went into cans. One of the textile experts (neither of whom knew the shroud, did not even show up till later!). One asked "whats that" pointing at the lance wound blood! shows they did not even bother to research it,and neither did the daters.
Far from testing with controls, the labs were given the dates of them! Outrageous! How then can they be controls? It means the samples were identified too, nothing blind at all. It was Unforgiveable. The labs conferred when they should have been prevented from it. They resisted witnesses. None of them characterised samples chemically. All notes red flags but then failed to deal with them.
Then after came the "unknown operation" that transformed the data into a paper, stating it was homogeneous. When it was inhomogenous. Unforgiveable.
The stats lab who was supposed to convert the data and makes sure no fiddling happened was not even appointed.
It was all a disgrace. Then of course came the questions.
3/ Ultimately proper science was allowed back in the room, But only after bad science had wasted a decade. Benford and marino showed that area was anomalous chemically, which you can see from the shroud archive, and proposed invisible reweave as the reason.
https://shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf
That is verified from STURP photos. In essence it does not matter why the area was anomalous, in chemical terms it was different, so the dating was not safe.
Rogers verified it by going back to the vault of documented samples of STURP. Remember them? All validated science from years before. Including RAES samples (yes he did a paper too). And that showed dye, spliced threads, cotton and all of the evidence that at some time the cloth was repaired. nobody had looked too hard at the raes sample fibres till then.
Then a legal FOI proved the data had been "Manipulated" from lab test to paper, so the RC test was invalid anyway.
Various other controlled tests (fanti) based on a suggestion by rogers, suggest first century.
The correspondence with the sudarium shows it must be a millenium older than the RC date.
Whatever the shroud is , is not medieaval and it is a crucified man compatible with middle east origin.
4/ A "conservation" done in 2000 has possibly wrecked a repeat dating, (thymol) and certainly messed with the dates. But they ignored meacham on that too.
And that brings us to where we are.
Except the daters so angered the pontifical academy and gonella in particular by their behaviour I doubt if the church wants any more to do with the unscientific community of daters
My suggestion of books is based on the fact it is very complex subject, and the papers alone have to be short so do not give a full picture. eg Rogers book is far more informative than any of his papers. Fantis book has a lot more raw data and images. I have many papers. The books are better.
The documentation in marinos book of all correspondence would never be allowed into a paper. But it shows how the dating fiasco came to pass and all the bad faith in the dating community.
I think you missed the point. If it is as suspected a repair weave, it mixes a few old frayed threads at the edge with Medieaval repair threads.. So it is a mixture of dates not a long duration repair.
My main contention: a hypothesis has to explain all the data not just one part.
The more ancient date indicated by linen decay is compatible with the forensic correspondence with the sudarium , and is compatible with the RC inhomegenity being indicative of mediaeval repair. It is compatible with Jerusalem type limestone. Etcetc. The mediaeval date/ fake hypothesis is incompatible with other evidence.
For the facts , I suggest you read my last post. A peer reviewed demonstration that that part of the shroud is different chemically which was known since 1978 peer reviewed studies.Oh Mike, you must know by now that the carbon dating of the shroud was never refuted and your sources avoid reliable peer review like the plague. That should tell you that even they know that they are wrong.
Mike, not all peer review is the same. There are various journals that are not well respected. You need an article in a well respected professional journal. There are quite a few sites that will publish almost anything as long as they are paid. The chosen journal not only needs to be well respected. The article must also be in an area of expertise covered by that journal. For example way back when Sanford tried to publish his "Genetic entropy" claim he used the mathematics house of a journal that covered multiple topics. They were about to publish his work for him, since the math looked right, when someone thought we should ask the bio guys what they think, and the errors were quickly pointed out. It was still published but without a peer reviewed stamp of approval.For the facts , I suggest you read my last post. A peer reviewed demonstration that that part of the shroud is different chemically which was known since 1978 peer reviewed studies.
The paper listed here many times shows The RC dates were not homogeneous, the data mysteriously "changed by an unknown process" from lab book to paper, and for a non stats person that means the areas are not representative of the same population. It voids the tests. There was no RC date.
If you read meacham ( who wrote before the RC tests) you see that the most common reason for RC date failure is "lack of association" . That is the thing dated is not representative of what you are trying to date. It is true in this case.
Meanwhile other peer reviewed papers like fanti show multiple dates based on other factors around first century, and the forensic correspondence with the sudarium shows it is at least a millenium older.
My post was designed to get people actually READ the shroud science of 1978 which was far better conducted.
Mike, not all peer review is the same. There are various journals that are not well respected. You need an article in a well respected professional journal. There are quite a few sites that will publish almost anything as long as they are paid. The chosen journal not only needs to be well respected. The article must also be in an area of expertise covered by that journal. For example way back when Sanford tried to publish his "Genetic entropy" claim he used the mathematics house of a journal that covered multiple topics. They were about to publish his work for him, since the math looked right, when someone thought we should ask the bio guys what they think, and the errors were quickly pointed out. It was still published but without a peer reviewed stamp of approval.
And no, just because you get results that you like does not mean that the science was "better". You never were able to defend that term either. No one has explained how this magic reweaving works and does not leave a sign of it happening. You also seem to have forgotten that when the sample was chosen they did look for signs of repair. Not only that but experts in weaving have refuted the reweaving claim by pointing out that there would have been signs of repair. How were they fooled when they chose the areas to sample? Also, there was to be no private sampling. This was a protocol accepted by all. When someone shows up with mystery samples after the fact when that person promised not to sample that person's honest has been compromised. The only question that remains is "When did he lie?"
And once again, there is peer review and then there is peer review. I see chemists making claims far outside of their specialty in your article which should immediately raise red flags. The weaving of the shroud is rather unique, and I can post articles by experts that will tell you that the "invisible weave" claim is nonsense. You seem to have forgotten the earlier bogus claims of deniers. Do you remember that they tried to claim that it could have been contaminated by the smoke from a fire?The 1978 sturp and 20 other articles were published in a range of journals all peer reviewed. Marino & benford in chemistry today, Rogers 2005 thermochimica acta.
Meachams warnings various archeology journals.
Fanti in various journals since, with other date methods.
Various journals published sudarium findings.
The nature article data is not internally consistent. Peers missed it.
Nobody accepts the RC date any more, even archeometry ie Oxford published the paper that showed the date was void, ie non homogenous and the RC lab data had been “ modified “ to give homogeneity. A disgrace!, but lines up with the physical findings that the chemistry of that area is different, optically, UV, X-ray. Dye was found on raes.
But study STURP. Find out what the shroud is. Even Michael tite who (mis) managed the dating , now accepts it’s a crucfied man.
Uh-huh ... and I'm Genghis Khan.There are all sorts of tests that could possibly falsify it.
Yes we all know that you think that you are Genghis Kahn. Instead of making false claims about your fellow man you should be trying to learn. Then maybe you could refute evolution. By the way, a Precambrian bunny rabbit would refute the theory.Uh-huh ... and I'm Genghis Khan.
The 1978 sturp and 20 other articles were published in a range of journals all peer reviewed. Marino & benford in chemistry today,
OK, I'll stop with the first one and take a look. It caught my eye as "Chemistry Today" sounds a lot like our "Physics Today" which is a monthly magazine with news and articles of relevance.
(article link, non-publisher)
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf
First Chemistry Today "chimica oggi" is a bimonthly journal that seems by the context of the other articles to be focused on industrial agro-chemistry.
https://www.teknoscienze.com/chemistry-today/
The other articles I could find PDFs of from that year (2008) of Chemistry Today "chimica oggi" were all shorter articles of the mini-review type. They were about quite different topics -- biofuels, chemical processes, etc. Just what you would expect from such a journal.
No institutional affiliations (not universities, companies, think tanks, nothing) were given for either author. The only contact given for either is a residential cul-de-sac in suburban Columbus, Ohio for the lead author M. Sue Benford.
My initial search took me to a researchgate entry for her (not a tool I regularly use)
M. Sue Benford's research works
It lists 11 scientific articles. Beyond the 8 shroud articles are 3 on some cellular-energy pseudoscience.
As for the co-author Marino, researchgate only finds those 8 articles (all are co-authored only by the two of them). From what I can tell in the citation generator, only this paper and one other even have an identified journal. (The other is also from chimica oggi.)
Did these articles go through some sort of peer review? Probably, but it seems unlikely that the journal had the appropriate reviewers on call for such a document.
SUMMARY:
This item is a massive list of RED FLAGS:
* Placed in inappropriate journal
* Secondary author has no known affiliation
* Secondary author has only authored papers (with lead author, and never anyone else) on this marginal topic. Of those, only two can be identified by researchgate, the other is *also* in the same journal;
* Lead author has no known affiliation
* Lead author's only papers not on shroud with (same) secondary author are on a different fringe/pseudoscience topic.
Fixed that for youSorry but the "repair" hypothesis, if one could even claim it to be one, is mere handwavingweaving.
You may recall an earlier post of mine.
Radio Carbon a journal affiliated to Arizona lab refused to publish anything critical of the dating, including Marino/ benford even after Rogers supported the case, because they chose as reviewers all of those who were involved in the testing. So they were never going to allow their work to be questioned because of vested interest.
So M/B published in chemistry today.
We get chemistry world - journal of the royal society of chemistry. It isn’t the best. However, even chemistry today is reviewed, and in essence - as spectra issues - they simply regurgitate what was produced by peer reviewed research in 1978.
What you fail to state is the images they produce relating to chemical composition are taken straight out of STURP 78 papers which was all reviewed. Whatever ever else you read in that paper it clearly shows that area as made of different stuff.
You cannot dismiss Rogers and Thermochimica acta so easily , he was not a chemist, or a shroud researcher. He was THE shroud chemical researcher.
His 1982 paper noted the raes area contained cotton WITHIN the threads, unlike the rest of the shroud, which only has a very low level of surface cotton.. Rogers 2005 paper showed raes area ( which has common warp or weft threads to the test sample ) has dyes and other constituents. His thread micro graphs show thread splices which he used to support Marino and Benford.
You can argue semantics about why that area is different stuff chemically.
Your posts are generally unmemorable. So I don't recall anything about this. I wrote about the first of the papers you cited under peer review. That is all, nothing more.
And how do you have all of this (alleged) information about the editorial decisions of a scientific journal? (selection of reviewers, etc.) This is a rather serious charge of misconduct. (Especially regarding the consideration of an article by two non-scientists.)
Huh? What does "Chemistry World" have to do with this? Are they the regurgitators? (It sounds like a society magazine like Physics World which is published by the parallel british physical society.)
Again, I did not comment about the content of the paper. (And how dare you accuse me of reading it.)
I did not dismiss (or mention) Rogers (who ever he is) and your description of him is incoherent.
None of this is relevant to my post. I did not assess the content of the Benford and Marino paper.
I said nothing about any "areas" and their chemical stuff.
That's the third time you commented about what I said or argued. In none of these cases have I actually made an argument about the thing you mentioned.
I see no reason to consider the rest of your post.
On one point: The reviewers of Radicarbon ( aka Arizona lab) were known, their comments became public.
The refusal to accept that paper is why Rogers defended it by presenting earlier samples in evidence . It demonstrated MB were correct. Conflict of interests is a clear problem in all science.
Were the sciebtists who defended smoking paid by the tobacco industry ever going to be impartial?
Arizona were a players of one of the teams. They cannot referee the game of what opposes their own arguments. The entire Dating reeks of bad faith, not Just in years of correspondence , but also that data was “manipulated” from lab book to paper, to show homogeneity it did not have.
You can't "dismiss" that which you cannot substantiate. I offered to go over the RC dating with you more than once and you have never responded. And wasn't Rogers a member of the team that went back on his word? You never told us when he lied.My post 1019 that started the latest exchange you have joined is that
most who try to support the RC date seem to have forgotten the mass of peer reviewed research of 1978, that says what the shroud IS, and what it is made of.
It is not just that the RC dating has been dismissed , because of inhomegenity , after “ manipulation” of data, but the test area was invalidated by information available in 1978.
So I am urging all to study what the shroud is and is made of. It explains why theRC test was invalid. Playing “ whack a mole” on Marino and benford does not alter that, because the prime data they submit for why the test failed was that in 1978. Rogers 2005 confirms the theory.
All should study STURP before comment on later research.
On one point: The reviewers of Radicarbon ( aka Arizona lab) were known, their comments became public. The refusal to accept that paper is why Rogers defended it by presenting earlier samples in evidence . It demonstrated MB were correct. Conflict of interests is a clear problem in all science. Were the sciebtists who defended smoking paid by the tobacco industry ever going to be impartial?
Arizona were a players of one of the teams. They cannot referee the game of what opposes their own arguments. The entire Dating reeks of bad faith, not Just in years of correspondence , but also that data was “manipulated” from lab book to paper, to show homogeneity it did not have.
And one more point. The problem is that refuting evolution is an extremely daunting task. To refute it would be akin to refuting gravity by dropping a rock and watch it float up and away. As the old saying goes, there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. You would have better luck refuting some of the hypotheses that are part of the theory. One could conceivably refute the relationship between various animal groups. But those relationships that bother you the most have been tested time and time again, and each time the relationships that bother you the most have been confirmed. For example creationists were all very eager for DNA to be sequenced. There was the tyical "Just you wait! When DNA is sequenced our relationship to apes will collapse like a house of cards." What did we find instead? The strongest evidence ever that we are the product of evolution with a testable relationship to other apes. Just as Maury Povich used to be able to say "You ARE the father!" by using DNA tests those same DNA tests tell us that "You ARE an ape!"Uh-huh ... and I'm Genghis Khan.
Thank you for backing my point.And one more point. The problem is that refuting evolution is an extremely daunting task.
Daunting does not even come close to meaning unfalsifiable. It is falsifiable. It has been tested countless times. That is has not been falsified, even though there are multiple ways of testing it, is a very very good sign that it is correct. Even if an idea is one hundred percent correct it still can be falsifiable. Do you understand this?Thank you for backing my point.
As I said, the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.
(Albeit it will be falsified when Jesus falsifies it: but He won't do it using science.)
I picked my word carefully: "unfalsifiable."Daunting does not even come close to meaning unfalsifiable.
And I'm Genghis Khan.Subduction Zone said:It is falsifiable.
Test it another countless times if you want. It's still unfalsifiable.Subduction Zone said:It has been tested countless times.
And therefore not science.Subduction Zone said:That is has not been falsified,
Test it all you want. Knock yourself out. But try and falsify it, and it can't be done.Subduction Zone said:... even though there are multiple ways of testing it,
But not science. Anything can be made to look correct on paper.Subduction Zone said:... is a very very good sign that it is correct.
Neat. Try that with the theory of evolution though and let me know what happens.Subduction Zone said:Even if an idea is one hundred percent correct it still can be falsifiable.
Yes.Subduction Zone said:Do you understand this?
I picked my word carefully: "unfalsifiable."And I'm Genghis Khan.Test it another countless times if you want. It's still unfalsifiable.And therefore not science.Test it all you want. Knock yourself out. But try and falsify it, and it can't be done.But not science. Anything can be made to look correct on paper.Neat. Try that with the theory of evolution though and let me know what happens.Yes.
Do you?
You're making my point for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?