-
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.
Is science at odds with philosophy?
- Thread starter Landon Caeli
- Start date
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
You will continue to believe what you want to believe.
And from now on I will let you.
A few observations.
You had no idea at all about the lack of homogeneity in the RC till I pointed it out.
you had no idea about the cotton or the different structure of linen. You had no idea about for example the finding of mineral deposits. That is the point. You are in essence a NEWCOMER to the shroud. You need a road map of what there is to be found. That is why you need to read the books.
Then you can look at the trees and contest some of them when you understand which are the woods. There are many more parts to this than I have time or willingness to put into writing here. The real reason I will not give you a link to the mineral analysis, is want to force you to read what STURP did!
On rogers. Before study a critique of Rogers- At least READ Rogers to discovers why Rogers thinks what he does. All of it, from the analysis of the body of the shroud (way back), then the samples he shows micrographed to prove splices, cotton (presumably there to assist in dyeing to match the repoairs, the structure of the linen is different too in the repair section. Until you know what the rest of the shroud is, the chemistry of the samples are meaningless to you.
The sample area has different spectrographs and fluorescence. That means it contains different stuff. You are a chemist . You know that. So that alone is one of many big red flags for dating. The daters did not know it. They were so contemptuous of STURP they failed to even study the cloth, as witness one of them querying "whats that?" (about the ostensible pooling of blood from the lance!)
If you studied rogers, you have a lens with which to view the continued attempt of Arizona to defend the part it had in a botch job. The cotton is actual fibre intimately woven into the cloth. It is not surface debris. It is found nowhere else in the weave of the shroud. The linen has different structure too. Since the area is not homogenous, it doesnt matter what arizona found on one bit of sample. It is irrelevant. The area has a big red flag.
It may be acceptable with your version of science to manipulate lab results between measurement and reporting, it is not permissible in mine or anywhere else to my knowledge.. The figures were fiddled. Hey presto they were made to look homogeneous when they were not (which is the most basic question you ask, not a detail).
In any accredited lab - the lack of homogeneity would have invalidated either the test process or the sample. It would have been declared a void. And so should they have declared void for this.
They knew it, and they knew it would have wrecked AMS so they fiddled the figures to look homogeneous. Only years later was the data forced into the open. Non homogeneous.
I rarely if ever contest peer reviewed articles, or at least presume bad faith on errors. I give everyone benefit of the doubt until they abuse integrity
But The daters abused it , see their correspondence in marinos book: if you think my words are harsh regarding the daters, you should see what they say about STURP and the academy. They also refused to honour agreed protocol that led to the catastrophe.
As for peer review. Radiocarbon lost integrity when they refused to publish Marinos work that contested the published articles in Radiocarbon, and with it the arizona lab. That is a fact. There is a problem if all the peers (like skeptical inquirer) are those who all hold a specific postion.
RC had a chance to do the honorable thing - and alow contest. They did not. Integrity is like virginity. you can only lose it once. Oxford and arizona lost it years ago. I no longer care what either of them think. Nature magazine at least pays lip service to avoiding those who they know will defacto contest an article. Nature magazine is not one of the institutions involved. But peer review is fallible anyway. All of them missed the fiddled standard deviation, which did not come from the published figures. Peers trust authors to behave. In this case they did not.
The oddity is of course the "canard" or false claim that I will not give citations is from another subject completely. Eucharistic miracles. In that context, a different branch of science was used. That is Forensic labs. Part of the process is a review. The lab reports are contained in books. I refer the books. But then since a couple of universities refused to get involved, knowing what the samples were, it is not surprising they used an alternative track.
Unlike the dating labs, I assure you they do not fiddle figures. Their procedures would prevent it. So forensic lab figures are at least oxford/arizona proof.
On the shroud. Even tite now accepts it is a crucified man! Slow learner but he got there.
There are only three hypotheses for the shroud.
(a) It is a fake. The pathology is so complex, and invisible unknown at the time, beyond reasonable doubt it was not faked. There is no known way to fake it even now.
(b) A real shroud , but not Jesus.
(c) A real shroud and Jesus.
True, I cannot prove (c) - however, everything fits except a date that was inhomogeneous ,and must be discounted just on that. Nothing does not fit hypothesis (c).
Or (b) . There are details in the crucifixion that no forger (in the sense of someone performing a crucifixion on anyone else ) would have done, if they wanted to pass it off as the real thing. Like the nails through wrists, the bonnet of thorns not crown. And why go to all the trouble to fake details like minerals, when nobody would have even suspected the problem?
For me an important issue here: If it was a fraud (ie real crucifixion, not jesus, but done to pass off as the real shroud) , you would not need a matching sudarium, to sell it on in mediaeval times, so why fake a sudarium?- since only intensive modern schience shows the correspondence? Which was certainly unkown back in the early centuries. The sudarium is not medieaval, and it has never been in the same place as the shroud.
So balance of probability and I say beyond reasonable doubt it is (c) , unless slamdunk evidence demonstrates (b) There is none at all. Not a jot.
So yes I believe it.
If compelling evidence shows (b) I will start believing that instead. I do not need it to be true. But the science points that way.
I doubt it will be contested.
So my advice to you @Opdrey, is go back to the beginning.
Study the shroud from STURP onwards . Get a context for the later arguments.
Do it on your own. I will no longer waste my time here.
And from now on I will let you.
A few observations.
You had no idea at all about the lack of homogeneity in the RC till I pointed it out.
you had no idea about the cotton or the different structure of linen. You had no idea about for example the finding of mineral deposits. That is the point. You are in essence a NEWCOMER to the shroud. You need a road map of what there is to be found. That is why you need to read the books.
Then you can look at the trees and contest some of them when you understand which are the woods. There are many more parts to this than I have time or willingness to put into writing here. The real reason I will not give you a link to the mineral analysis, is want to force you to read what STURP did!
On rogers. Before study a critique of Rogers- At least READ Rogers to discovers why Rogers thinks what he does. All of it, from the analysis of the body of the shroud (way back), then the samples he shows micrographed to prove splices, cotton (presumably there to assist in dyeing to match the repoairs, the structure of the linen is different too in the repair section. Until you know what the rest of the shroud is, the chemistry of the samples are meaningless to you.
The sample area has different spectrographs and fluorescence. That means it contains different stuff. You are a chemist . You know that. So that alone is one of many big red flags for dating. The daters did not know it. They were so contemptuous of STURP they failed to even study the cloth, as witness one of them querying "whats that?" (about the ostensible pooling of blood from the lance!)
If you studied rogers, you have a lens with which to view the continued attempt of Arizona to defend the part it had in a botch job. The cotton is actual fibre intimately woven into the cloth. It is not surface debris. It is found nowhere else in the weave of the shroud. The linen has different structure too. Since the area is not homogenous, it doesnt matter what arizona found on one bit of sample. It is irrelevant. The area has a big red flag.
It may be acceptable with your version of science to manipulate lab results between measurement and reporting, it is not permissible in mine or anywhere else to my knowledge.. The figures were fiddled. Hey presto they were made to look homogeneous when they were not (which is the most basic question you ask, not a detail).
In any accredited lab - the lack of homogeneity would have invalidated either the test process or the sample. It would have been declared a void. And so should they have declared void for this.
They knew it, and they knew it would have wrecked AMS so they fiddled the figures to look homogeneous. Only years later was the data forced into the open. Non homogeneous.
I rarely if ever contest peer reviewed articles, or at least presume bad faith on errors. I give everyone benefit of the doubt until they abuse integrity
But The daters abused it , see their correspondence in marinos book: if you think my words are harsh regarding the daters, you should see what they say about STURP and the academy. They also refused to honour agreed protocol that led to the catastrophe.
As for peer review. Radiocarbon lost integrity when they refused to publish Marinos work that contested the published articles in Radiocarbon, and with it the arizona lab. That is a fact. There is a problem if all the peers (like skeptical inquirer) are those who all hold a specific postion.
RC had a chance to do the honorable thing - and alow contest. They did not. Integrity is like virginity. you can only lose it once. Oxford and arizona lost it years ago. I no longer care what either of them think. Nature magazine at least pays lip service to avoiding those who they know will defacto contest an article. Nature magazine is not one of the institutions involved. But peer review is fallible anyway. All of them missed the fiddled standard deviation, which did not come from the published figures. Peers trust authors to behave. In this case they did not.
The oddity is of course the "canard" or false claim that I will not give citations is from another subject completely. Eucharistic miracles. In that context, a different branch of science was used. That is Forensic labs. Part of the process is a review. The lab reports are contained in books. I refer the books. But then since a couple of universities refused to get involved, knowing what the samples were, it is not surprising they used an alternative track.
Unlike the dating labs, I assure you they do not fiddle figures. Their procedures would prevent it. So forensic lab figures are at least oxford/arizona proof.
On the shroud. Even tite now accepts it is a crucified man! Slow learner but he got there.
There are only three hypotheses for the shroud.
(a) It is a fake. The pathology is so complex, and invisible unknown at the time, beyond reasonable doubt it was not faked. There is no known way to fake it even now.
(b) A real shroud , but not Jesus.
(c) A real shroud and Jesus.
True, I cannot prove (c) - however, everything fits except a date that was inhomogeneous ,and must be discounted just on that. Nothing does not fit hypothesis (c).
Or (b) . There are details in the crucifixion that no forger (in the sense of someone performing a crucifixion on anyone else ) would have done, if they wanted to pass it off as the real thing. Like the nails through wrists, the bonnet of thorns not crown. And why go to all the trouble to fake details like minerals, when nobody would have even suspected the problem?
For me an important issue here: If it was a fraud (ie real crucifixion, not jesus, but done to pass off as the real shroud) , you would not need a matching sudarium, to sell it on in mediaeval times, so why fake a sudarium?- since only intensive modern schience shows the correspondence? Which was certainly unkown back in the early centuries. The sudarium is not medieaval, and it has never been in the same place as the shroud.
So balance of probability and I say beyond reasonable doubt it is (c) , unless slamdunk evidence demonstrates (b) There is none at all. Not a jot.
So yes I believe it.
If compelling evidence shows (b) I will start believing that instead. I do not need it to be true. But the science points that way.
I doubt it will be contested.
So my advice to you @Opdrey, is go back to the beginning.
Study the shroud from STURP onwards . Get a context for the later arguments.
Do it on your own. I will no longer waste my time here.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
One of the papers I cited discussed that explicitly.
I would dearly love to learn more about the aragonite. What made it so unique that it could only come from Jerusalem? As I said given my actual background this is VERY interesting to me.
An excuse. I will find out on my own because you don't understand the topic sufficiently to explain what it is you have read. That is sad. It means you have piled a lot of books on your shelf but you can't actually explain what you read in detail.
That is going too far, Mike. That's a vicious accusation. One I take quite personally.
Here: You seem to bear false witness and make up stuff about my posts so it is clear YOU are the one who has an "honesty" problem. The fact that you find fraud in others' work so easily and you clearly can't be counted on to be honest in your own posting I wonder if perhaps in your lab YOU are the one fiddling with data. Are you?
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
The papers did not do justice to what Rogers found.
On aragonite. Find it. For the first time look at what STURP actually did - the specialist they brought in to analyse it.
Later research compares trace element ratios, and on the sudarium.
I am moving on.... I dont need the torrent of abuse here.
On aragonite. Find it. For the first time look at what STURP actually did - the specialist they brought in to analyse it.
Later research compares trace element ratios, and on the sudarium.
I am moving on.... I dont need the torrent of abuse here.
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
I understand you don't know what it was you read when you read about the aragonite. So it stands to reason that you can't even marshal one bit of information on this.
And given your "honesty problem" you are going to hide behind this idea that you want me to do the research myself. Which is fine. I'm more than willing to do so. But it is quite telling that YOU, the local expert on all things Shroud, can't even begin to discuss it in any detail despite all your books.
I'd ask which trace elements but I'm sure you don't actually know.
So when you accused me of being OK with academic fraud YOU THINK THAT WASN'T ABUSE??
Thou hypocrite.
Upvote
0
Yeah - I've still got a functional HP67 (card reader & battery pack no longer work) from the Medical Research Council that I programmed to calculate body fat % from skinfold anthropometry values for some research we did back in the day. That's what got me interested in computing - it was followed by a Commodore PET with BASIC.
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I take as I find.
You keep defending the misrepresentation of data for nature. Why? The nature article was a fraud. Why are you defending the institutions that did it? Data does not manipulate itself, somebody did it deliberately. Anyone checking it finds the changes. Tite knew, that was his job. He Said nothing.
You don’t even arrive at the obvious consequence of their “ peer reviewed” paper that happens to be in their own journal.
(It’s clear Arizona have not read what Rogers wrote , they didn’t before the test either, but let that pass. )
The ridiculous thing is they are trying to claim their remnant sample contained none of what Rogers found .( which they had previously refused to release to others by the way )
They ignore the blindingly obvious: the elephant in the room.
That daters own tests declare the samples heterogenous, although they tried to hide it. So it doesn’t matter what one sample Says , their own tests said the others were different stuff! That’s what heterogenous means!
That is the problem with the daters since the beginning. They needed a hypothesis to explain ALL the data, not just their own. Their sample is irrelevant if all samples give different results.
And they need to explain why fluorescence and spectrographs of that area gave anomalous results. It’s what meacham called “ characterisation” - the daters refused to do it. They refused to honour the test protocol either.
In big boys science in accredited labs, under GMP ( indeed biopharm manufacture or test) homogeneity is EVERYTHING. Everything is multiply checked,
It is rechecked by other people. No fudging of data could pass. Failing homogeneity either invalidates the process, or it invalidates the sample or batch. It forces an NCR with consequence for process and input qualification. The machine would likely be quarantined until revalidated. And Every which way it makes the test void. The RC date is not indicative. It is void. Irrelevant. That is how GMP labs work.
You are out.
Reread what you just said , to work out why.
As for trace elements? I know. You will too if you study it. It’s low levels of something I used to colour home made fireworks when I was a junior school kid. Great fun before all the safety stuff crept in.
But it’s time you studied the shroud , starting with what sturp actually did. Wilson’s books are a reasonable overview with references. They got a specialist to do it.
Sadly without my help, you won’t trust my answer anyway if you think there is an “ honesty” problem. Don’t you dare!!
I’m moving on, this time for good.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I keep hoping opdrey will keep to science.
I give lots of last chances. Sadly now the word lack of “ honesty “ was used , it’s time to call time.
whilst you are on…
What do you make of an important paper in which the data from lab books was “ modified by an unknown process” to arrive at what was published? That is beyond dispute. An FOI proved it. A paper in which a critical standard deviation doesn’t even match the rigged data they did publish. That so happened to make it more homogenous!
The data originally was not homogenous ( so would be rejected as a measure of anything) just “ happened” to be made homogenous in the paper which ensured the future of AMS at the expense of truth about the shroud?
Was it incompetence or fraud?
Do you trust any date they give after that, to anything they say about the shroud?
Tell opdrey the answer is very low strontium, it seems I am no longer talking to him. But then he is sure I don’t know, and says I’m not honest so he wouldn’t trust my answer anyway. It’s pure coincidence of course that other research groups said the same, just as sturp did 30 years ago. The reason I know is I read. A lot.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
And I take as I find as well. You have an honestly problem, Mike. I'm sorry to say it. You've repeatedly leveled charges at me and made up things I never said.
Are you unable to read? I never said the data was perfect or even good. I have even CLEARLY STATED THAT THE DATA COULD BE WRONG.
Again, it's that honesty problem you have. You repeatedly tell me I said or did this or that and it's not TRUE!
How would a "physics mathematical modeler" know anything about GMP in a biopharma lab? Your story is all over the place. More problems with honesty I suppose.
You provide no real evidence to that end.
I love how you continually bear false witness. Are you angry at God such that you have to continually violate HIs commandments???
I have provided MULTIPLE citations which I've discussed AT LENGHT in this very thread. And here you are making up more untruths about what I have said and done.
I'm not playing some stupid game just because you can't act like an honest or even decent person.
Good. Your behavior has gone so far as to cause GRIEVOUS offense. Your continued dishonesty is getting sickening.
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
I've spent my life with programmable scientific calculators but I never really felt comfortable programming. Even today my programming skills are modest. I always loved the HP's because they were (formerly) built like bricks and no one would "borrow" one from you because it was RPN only. When I was in grad school in the late 80's I took a risk and took a p chem class (something most people do in undergrad but I was a geology grad and it wasn't necessary, but I felt I should do more of it since I wanted to be in geochem). My old algebraic calc died and I decided I wanted to finally get an HP. I didn't pay my electricity bill for a couple months and dodged a few other bills to scrape together the $$$$ for an HP 11C. So I was trying to teach myself how to use RPN simultaneously while taking p-chem which was easily the most disorientingly difficult chem class for me. Oh, yeah, and since I was in grad school if I slipped up and got a really bad grade it would have been a near-disaster. Luckily I slipped through. And I still have my blessed 11C to this day. WONDERFUL machine.
When I was in undergrad in the early 80's computers were just coming to the fore and in geology where I was at there was no requirement whatsoever to get programming skills. But I took a BASIC class and yea we used the Commodore PETs. Weird, weird machines. Ugly things too.
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
The data was not wrong as meaning “ in error”
It was provably manipulated by an “ unknown operation” between lab book and paper. You are either good with that or appalled. You either trust people who do that, or you never trust them again. There is no middle ground.
I don’t trust them, but that’s because I read all their correspondence in marinos book - they were a disgrace to science. You haven’t. You dont evens seem to have read the basics, ie STURP reports. You know nothing of the endless meetings aimed at establishing a protocol for test, or all of meachams warnings on dating , that the daters then ignored.
Until you have studied it you cannot have an opinion on the daters , so on what basis can you criticise my opinion?
Of the papers you quoted skeptical inquirer! It is utter junk. Nobody quotes mccrone any more. All he said was totally discredited. The mark is not an artwork or paint. The blood is real blood. Heller and Adler have never been disputed and even Kearse accepts their main conclusions. Even tite believes that now. Quoting mcrone , or quoting a paper based on mcrone is the result of failure to research.
You do not have any place to attack my qualifications in every single post which is offensive, not least because it is a straw man: If I echo Rogers, it’s Rogers you are arguing with if you dispute I what I say.
You still refuse to read the basics or you would know the issue of mineral reports.
Done in sturp. Repeated in context of sudarium much later.
If you want any dialogue at all, leave the word “ you” out.
Play the ball, not the man. Also condemn data fiddling. Then we have common ground.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
INFORMATION ON ARAGONITE ON THE SHROUD.
Thanks to my excellent research skills I have been able to track down the information on the Shroud's travertine aragonite.
Seems it comes from one Joseph Kohlbeck, an optical crystallographer who works for Hercules Aerospace (the makers of Trident missiles) and an archaeologist who became a Carmelite nun, Eugenia L. Nitowski and it is published in the journal Biblical Archeology Review (it has only 24 cites of the article so not a huge impact article).
Joseph A. Kohlbeck & Eugenia L. Nitowski, "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem" Biblical Archaeology Review, vol 12 no. 4, July/August 1986, pp.18-29.
Unfortunately there is no actual link to the article that exists online, no html from the journal, no .pdf available so I am forced to go from various "summaries". One that is more detailed (but not even marginally like a science paper) is provided by David Shultz in his "Shroud Bibliography". (Unknown provenance which throws some red flags but shouldn't be a problem for you, Mike. Your bar for accepting information is extremely low and so long as it confirms your bias it is probably as good as gold)
First thing to note is that aragonite is not so rare as to be ONLY from the Holy Land. Far from it. In fact the "type locale" from which it gets its name is actually in SPAIN! It is found all over the world. It is a more rare form CaCO3 (that's calcium carbonate, Mike). CaCO3 comes in a few different mineralogical phases. The most common is calcite with vaterite and aragonite being less common phases. Aragonite has an orthorhombic crystal structure (don't worry about that, Mike, you can google what an orthorhombic crystal is some other time). It does form in a more narrow range of conditions than calcite and is often replaced by calcite owing to its metastable nature at near surface conditions. The aragonite Kohlbeck et al found on the shroud appeared to be from a travertine deposit. These form near hotsprings. Again, found all over the world.
It sounds like Kohlbeck and Nitowski worked with Levi-Setti at the Fermi Institute in Chicago where he used a high res microprobe. Kohlbeck, Nitowski and Levi-Setti felt that the Fe and Sr (that's iron and strontium, Mike) content of the travertine aragonite pieces found was similar to pieces of aragonite travertine that they went to collect in Jerusalem.
Even Kohlbeck hedges his bets by saying that this may not be the only place where this sort of travertine aragonite is found but he knows of no other place. Given that this article is from 1986 I would take that with a ginormous grain of salt.
Aragonite is less common than calcite (the more common phase of CaCO3, that's calcium carbonate, Mike) and forms in a more narrow range of conditions, however it is NOT in and of itself limited to the Holy Land. From what I can gather from the summary by David Shulz the aragonite they tested contained Fe and Sr but no Pb (that's iron and strontium, but not lead, Mike). Sr does not surprise me one bit given that Sr often substitutes for Ca. I would dearly love to see the actual values and any discussion of this and its commonality or lack thereof within aragonites from all over the world.
So there's some relatively vague matches between dirt from Jerusalem and a few grains found on the Shroud. That's a good start. But, of course, if it were more robust perhaps it wouldn't be buried and cited only by 24 other papers. And I wouldn't have to rely solely summaries by unrelated third parties who provide no real details.
Thanks to my excellent research skills I have been able to track down the information on the Shroud's travertine aragonite.
Seems it comes from one Joseph Kohlbeck, an optical crystallographer who works for Hercules Aerospace (the makers of Trident missiles) and an archaeologist who became a Carmelite nun, Eugenia L. Nitowski and it is published in the journal Biblical Archeology Review (it has only 24 cites of the article so not a huge impact article).
Joseph A. Kohlbeck & Eugenia L. Nitowski, "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem" Biblical Archaeology Review, vol 12 no. 4, July/August 1986, pp.18-29.
Unfortunately there is no actual link to the article that exists online, no html from the journal, no .pdf available so I am forced to go from various "summaries". One that is more detailed (but not even marginally like a science paper) is provided by David Shultz in his "Shroud Bibliography". (Unknown provenance which throws some red flags but shouldn't be a problem for you, Mike. Your bar for accepting information is extremely low and so long as it confirms your bias it is probably as good as gold)
First thing to note is that aragonite is not so rare as to be ONLY from the Holy Land. Far from it. In fact the "type locale" from which it gets its name is actually in SPAIN! It is found all over the world. It is a more rare form CaCO3 (that's calcium carbonate, Mike). CaCO3 comes in a few different mineralogical phases. The most common is calcite with vaterite and aragonite being less common phases. Aragonite has an orthorhombic crystal structure (don't worry about that, Mike, you can google what an orthorhombic crystal is some other time). It does form in a more narrow range of conditions than calcite and is often replaced by calcite owing to its metastable nature at near surface conditions. The aragonite Kohlbeck et al found on the shroud appeared to be from a travertine deposit. These form near hotsprings. Again, found all over the world.
It sounds like Kohlbeck and Nitowski worked with Levi-Setti at the Fermi Institute in Chicago where he used a high res microprobe. Kohlbeck, Nitowski and Levi-Setti felt that the Fe and Sr (that's iron and strontium, Mike) content of the travertine aragonite pieces found was similar to pieces of aragonite travertine that they went to collect in Jerusalem.
Even Kohlbeck hedges his bets by saying that this may not be the only place where this sort of travertine aragonite is found but he knows of no other place. Given that this article is from 1986 I would take that with a ginormous grain of salt.
Aragonite is less common than calcite (the more common phase of CaCO3, that's calcium carbonate, Mike) and forms in a more narrow range of conditions, however it is NOT in and of itself limited to the Holy Land. From what I can gather from the summary by David Shulz the aragonite they tested contained Fe and Sr but no Pb (that's iron and strontium, but not lead, Mike). Sr does not surprise me one bit given that Sr often substitutes for Ca. I would dearly love to see the actual values and any discussion of this and its commonality or lack thereof within aragonites from all over the world.
So there's some relatively vague matches between dirt from Jerusalem and a few grains found on the Shroud. That's a good start. But, of course, if it were more robust perhaps it wouldn't be buried and cited only by 24 other papers. And I wouldn't have to rely solely summaries by unrelated third parties who provide no real details.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
On the positive side, good you are researching it. On the negative side you only ever look at things I point at. You need to get an overview by reading some of the books.
It is buried because it is old. In 1978 there was no internet, and archives are held in collections from which you must order. Just like I had to pay $30 to get a copy of the original paper on Lanciano.
Serious researchers get the paper from biblical archeology, they also follow forwards and note exactly the same low strontium exists in the matching areas of the forensic matching sudarium that has so many points in common it shows the shroud dating was bunk, since the sudarium provenance is 1000 years older! Have you even looked up what it is yet?
Have you even looked up the first sturp report? You need to study the basics.
As I have pointed out. There are only three hypotheses for the shroud.
1/ A fake. ie a constructed artwork.
2/ A crucifixion victim, not jesus.
3/ A crucifixion victim, Jesus.
On 1/ Far too much pathology which was unknown and invisible in medieaval times , and a myriad of details rules that out. Nobody knows to this day how to fake the image. There are ideas that reproduce some characteristics but there is no experiment conceived that can reproduce the lot. Even Michael Tite an architect of the dating debacle, now accepts it is a crucified man. Only shroud flat earthers deny that now.
On 3/ I cannot of course prove 3 as distinct from 2 . But All details match, including some a fraudster would never copy because of iconography, and nothing does not match, except a botched RC test, whose inhomogeneity rules it out as a valid test and so voids the answer. The sample was made of different stuff. A gradient of dates in a heavily repaired cloth, with different spectral characteristics..
There are a myriad of details you are missing as a shroud novice. I point out the low strontium level is also true of the much older sudarium. So both cloths match each other and jerusalem. The sudarium has never been in france in recorded history and the provenance predates the shroud by most of a millenium.
Here is another. I could cite many. Fleury lemberg noticed a very unusual stitching pattern that has only ever been seen in the holy land in the first century. Danin has found a flower pattern of a species that only exists there.
2/ is only a sensible proposition if there is evidence it ever happened. The crucifixion of Jesus 3/ is a documented event.
If it were not Jesus in question 2/ would never have entered the frame, 3/ would be accepted without question, because of occams razor, unless there was slamdunk evidence AGAINST it. Although Tite, true to form, holds (with no evidence at all ) that it was a crusader! These jilted RC daters are determined never to let go of their faith that it is medieaval! You cannot rule out the entire tutankhamun tomb was a contemporary "set up" faked to look like the real thing. But it is such a preposterous hypothesis nobody would take that seriously.
For the counter argument to yours on "not known anywhere else". Then where in Lirey france did a forger (ie a crucificier in other than jerusalem) get the right aragonite? Where is a record of that crufixion? Who is it supposed to be as victim or crucifixioner? And how would the crucifier know to forge the right strontium level ? Why would he bother to do that, knowing that he would not get caught for another 500 years till the advent of the spectrometer? How did they happen by accdient to put so much eastern DNA on the cloth. And so on. Why would he bother with dirt at all on sudarium and shroud? After all, they would only do the crucifixion, not the multiple falls from staggering with a cross, that resulted in minerals in the nose area of shroud and sudarium! Why are sudarium, linceul and shroud all blood group AB?
Occams razor says 3/ since 1/ is discounted unless there is actual evidence of 2/ There is none.
"Coincidence" as Einstein said is "how God stays anonymous"
My advice to you is three fold.
For the first time ever @Opdrey go back to the beginning and study it, all the way from STURP. You are in for a fascinating journey, you will also see just how desparate and pathetic the attempts of arizona are to defend a duff dating.
Leave out the patronising. In a previous post, I noted I used strontium in home made fireworks as a kid. It is what I used to make them go red. Needless to say I did crystal growing too, as I am guessing you did. It is what geeks do. Chemistry and physics are blurred. You cannot do one without understanding much of the other. Strontium is used in semiconductors and elsewere. I noted i have modelled specialist semiconductors in the past, long after undergraduate courses on the design of them. So I understand crystalline structures. You cannot understand semiconductors without them. They are all about deliberate defects in crystal lattices. I also have a low qualification in geology (I took just for fun in my lunchtimes at school). I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. I read several books a week, for which I am ridiculed here.
But why Need I say any of the above when I am relying on Kohlbeck, and others who did later mineral analysis.
A little advice for life. (intended as humerous)
On your basis it "might not be holy land" even though an expert said it is only known there to his knowledge. I suggest if you see something on the pavement that looks like dog poo and smells like dogpoo, you do not taste it, on the off chance it might be something else, as yet undefined by experts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
- Feb 12, 2022
- 833
- 546
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
Even my articles from the mid-1990's can be found online. Even if the abstract is in .html.
You seem to have some information on the actual values of Sr, Fe, Pb etc in the aragonite. Could you perchance share any of that?
If only I was talking to someone who had spent years researching it I could ask them questions but there's no one around here who can answer them like a professional researcher.
When you say "low Sr levels" I'm genuinely curious. Given that CaCO3 (that's the chemical formula for aragonite) doesn't contain Sr to begin with but rather, one assumes, as a lattice substitution for the Ca2+ I would like to know "low" vs what, exactly? And, again, given the commonality of aragonite and Sr substitution for Ca it's kind of like saying a "red headed man was seen at the crime" and assuming that the ONLY place red headed people exist is Scotland and hence it must have been a Scottish criminal. I'll need more information.
Of course it would not be strange for a Ca-bearing phase to contain Sr I'm curious what you mean by "low".
Throw some links in there instead of just the names. Thanks. I have done that for you.
There is no contemporaneous documents describing the crucifixion. There are, at best, writings from up to 50-80 years after the fact in the form of one of the "synoptic" gospels.
That's assuming that Jerusalem was the ONLY place that an aragonite with those features could be found. Given that aragonite is known from around the world, also that hot springs exist around the world I'm still unconvinced. But then I've done a pretty good job of trying to find the mineralogical details. Unfortunately there's no one on this thread who has access to the detailed information.
Nowhere that I am aware of.
Again, it would be pretty weak tea to use Sr level in an aragonite to nail down just Jerusalem.
I've spent a significant amount of time teaching non-scientists. It is an old habit. Especially since you are not a chemist. You are a physics mathematics modeler who works on top secret military topics. I'm trying to help you.
Not as a kid. As an undergrad and grad student I studied mineralogy extensively and was the teaching assistant for the mineralogy class for a couple years. I have done XRD and optical mineralogy as well as a rather large number of geochemistry classes. As such I have much more direct experience as a professional in this area.
Amateur. Slow your roll on the great qualifications you have. 4-sigma IQ physics mathematic modeler who works on top secret government programs that could result in the loss of life if GMP protocols were not followed and now has a vast knowledge of all other things yet doesn't know how to capitalize proper nouns and doesn't know how to provide an actual literature citation to support his points. After a bit people stop believing it the more the lily is gilded.
You probably read so many books because you have 4 sigma IQ. Unfortunately your incredibly massive IQ doesn't keep you from making up stuff about people. To my knowledge you are not ridiculed for reading per se. Perhaps you are ridiculed for you steadfast dislike of peer reviewed literature in preference to trade paperbacks. But not for reading.
All I've ever seen is the vague summary and since you don't understand it enough to communicate to anyone else I don't see you relying on anything.
He's a crystallographer who works for a defense contractor in Utah. The article was written in 1986 and so far all we know from the vague summaries is it has something to do with Sr and Fe levels in an aragonite. That is not sufficient to establish the case.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,819
- 1,644
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
@Opdrey
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that this caricature of me you invented is completely false.
- I actually have far more papers on the shroud than I have books! I have the biblical archeology paper, the article on SEM studies to which it refers, the original STURP paper and the articles that that refers on spectroscopy etc etc etc So on, and so forth. The paper that deals with mineral spectra related to the sudarium. They are not that hard to get if you want to.
- I read a lot of papers, and there is a lot of junk and dubious stuff amongst them. Papers are not immune from error. After all, the original Nature article on radio carbon data was a heist, in which data had been fiddled. It took 20 years before a legal process managed to get the data the daters had refused to disclose and been trying to hide! If peer review had worked, they would have found the invented deviation!
- If you had actually taken my hint to read one of the books, as a primer to the shroud to find out what is out there ( instead of relying on me) the histogram of element weights is in one of the well known books! By far the best summaries of a field to date are in books. Papers are useful only for short periods, then they die because of being superceded, or they are incorporated into books as part of the established knowledge.
- On other points, yes I signed the official secrets act working for a defence company. There are a lot of us about. I am guessing tens of thousands in the UK , three times that in the USA. We are not uncommon. Defence is 2% of GDP!
I also did a lot of commercial in confidence. I am guessing there are as many clever people in defence, commercial interests , and forensics as there are in academia! We cannot all use academic journals, to report what we do, and looking at the quality of many of them, i would not want to either!.
- Math modellers need to know a LOT of physics and/or physical chemistry. And a lot of what you say you do not like which is programming models and trying to make them fast and robust enough. Our understanding of the physics has to deep and nitty gritty -all the nasty non linear time variant parts complete with hysteresis. Not just the sanitized linear model academics normally use. And certainly not the mixture of wishful thinking and guesswork the UK epidemiologists just used on covid. How useless were they!!
- As for your articles in the mid 1990s online. I must hasten to remind you the web was a creation of the 90s. in the 80s and before much is only available in fiche or collections.
Why you think I might actually post data to help you after the condescending nonsense in your last post beats me. But I will, just to prove I have the paper I doubt if a scan of a copy is readable. But you will get the gist of the conformance.
You seem to have missed the critical issue.
That all the data of many kinds from the shroud and sudarium is consistent with each other and the holy land. None of it is inconsistent. Even if no one item is a slamdunk, taken all together they make fraud a near impossible coincidence.
It is true of all sorts of aspects of the shroud. How so if it was all a fake or a fraud? Why is the only example of unusual stitching that textile expert Fleury Lemberg has seen that is the same on the shroud first century holy land? How would a fraudster even know it? Let alone copy it? How woud a fraudster know that all limestone is not the same? Back in the first centuries when the sudarium provenance dates (which happens to match the shroud... and jerusalem..)
Whilst there might be some far off place that has a similar spectrum, as the mineral, the only locations that matter are those on a path from the holy land to Lirey. The fake hypothesis is roundly disproved by the impossibility of faking, this really is a crucified man!
You also seem to miss the critical question completely. There are deposits on the feet and nose (and nose area of sudarium). Why is that debris there at all, if it is a fake or a fraud? Why would a fraudster bother? It is remarkable that it is consistent with the holy land.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that this caricature of me you invented is completely false.
- I actually have far more papers on the shroud than I have books! I have the biblical archeology paper, the article on SEM studies to which it refers, the original STURP paper and the articles that that refers on spectroscopy etc etc etc So on, and so forth. The paper that deals with mineral spectra related to the sudarium. They are not that hard to get if you want to.
- I read a lot of papers, and there is a lot of junk and dubious stuff amongst them. Papers are not immune from error. After all, the original Nature article on radio carbon data was a heist, in which data had been fiddled. It took 20 years before a legal process managed to get the data the daters had refused to disclose and been trying to hide! If peer review had worked, they would have found the invented deviation!
- If you had actually taken my hint to read one of the books, as a primer to the shroud to find out what is out there ( instead of relying on me) the histogram of element weights is in one of the well known books! By far the best summaries of a field to date are in books. Papers are useful only for short periods, then they die because of being superceded, or they are incorporated into books as part of the established knowledge.
- On other points, yes I signed the official secrets act working for a defence company. There are a lot of us about. I am guessing tens of thousands in the UK , three times that in the USA. We are not uncommon. Defence is 2% of GDP!
I also did a lot of commercial in confidence. I am guessing there are as many clever people in defence, commercial interests , and forensics as there are in academia! We cannot all use academic journals, to report what we do, and looking at the quality of many of them, i would not want to either!.
- Math modellers need to know a LOT of physics and/or physical chemistry. And a lot of what you say you do not like which is programming models and trying to make them fast and robust enough. Our understanding of the physics has to deep and nitty gritty -all the nasty non linear time variant parts complete with hysteresis. Not just the sanitized linear model academics normally use. And certainly not the mixture of wishful thinking and guesswork the UK epidemiologists just used on covid. How useless were they!!
- As for your articles in the mid 1990s online. I must hasten to remind you the web was a creation of the 90s. in the 80s and before much is only available in fiche or collections.
Why you think I might actually post data to help you after the condescending nonsense in your last post beats me. But I will, just to prove I have the paper I doubt if a scan of a copy is readable. But you will get the gist of the conformance.
You seem to have missed the critical issue.
That all the data of many kinds from the shroud and sudarium is consistent with each other and the holy land. None of it is inconsistent. Even if no one item is a slamdunk, taken all together they make fraud a near impossible coincidence.
It is true of all sorts of aspects of the shroud. How so if it was all a fake or a fraud? Why is the only example of unusual stitching that textile expert Fleury Lemberg has seen that is the same on the shroud first century holy land? How would a fraudster even know it? Let alone copy it? How woud a fraudster know that all limestone is not the same? Back in the first centuries when the sudarium provenance dates (which happens to match the shroud... and jerusalem..)
Whilst there might be some far off place that has a similar spectrum, as the mineral, the only locations that matter are those on a path from the holy land to Lirey. The fake hypothesis is roundly disproved by the impossibility of faking, this really is a crucified man!
You also seem to miss the critical question completely. There are deposits on the feet and nose (and nose area of sudarium). Why is that debris there at all, if it is a fake or a fraud? Why would a fraudster bother? It is remarkable that it is consistent with the holy land.
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
