Now tell me the scientist is capable of logic without bias.

[Subduction Zone]

The "Professor Dave" videos are indeed quite good. I ran into his reply to Tour's reply first (so it was a bit of an odd way to start) some time back. From the various videos I saw I learned a lot that I didn't know before. I was quite impressed by how much work has been accomplished in OOL research.

Perhaps some of the posters here do have a valid point. As Tour illustrates scientists can be stubborn and dogmatic and ignore evidence. (Especially about things that are close to, but not in their fields of expertise.)

His response videos were very good too. He pulled out all the stops and interviewed quite a few of the scientists involved. I think that even before I ran into Professor Dave Bill Ludlow on his YouTube channel along with Dr. Gary Hurd exposed how Tour lied about Jack Szostak. I have not checked the video for bad words so if you want to see it just type in Bill Ludlow Gary Hurd in the YouTube search engine and it should come up. Gary Hurd also joined a forum or two that I belonged to. At one of them, not here, he did not last too long because he did not handle dishonest and ignorance rather well. He made it pretty clear when people were lying or being . . . um less than intelligent.

 

[Mountainmike]

There are plenty of other things that indicate the Shroud is not

No there are not.
It’s the surprising thing. Push the clearly questionable date one side and all other data fits with hypothesis crucified man in exactly the way Jesus was, and possible origin holy land. A faker in 14th century did not know enough pathology or science, botany or geology to fake it.

I prefer the point of view of the mass of scientists that actually researched it and tested the chemistry/ pathology. Sadly - the one most publicised test was done by people who knew nothing about the shroud, other than wanting to promote AMS, and they even failed their own process validation.

I keep hoping someone here will study it. They never do. But here is the botched validation. To understand the context you need to study the shroud conferences such as Trondheim. Under accredited lab practice the actual RC test could not have gone ahead. The process failed validation. No non conformance analysis was done , which is a necessity prior to revaludatuon.

That’s why I prefer forensic reports ( as on so called Eucharistic miracles ) to academic papers. The forensic lab Standards are trustworthy.

https://repository.arizona.edu/bits...2614/971-1222-1-PB.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


But you are right in the sense the discussion does not belong here, except to say the dating fiasco one of the worst examples of bias in action ever seen. Harry Gove , inventor of AMS , convicts himself of that in his own autobiography, as did Halls in a lesser way. Halls certainly did not have an open mind.

It’s something I don’t get.
It’s one thing to oppose a hint of miraculous if it threatens a world view. But in essence the shroud just confirms a historic event, which threatens nobodies world view. So why the reason for bias?

 

[SelfSim]

It’s one thing to oppose a hint of miraculous if it threatens a world view. But in essence the shroud just confirms a historic event, which threatens nobodies world view. So why the reason for bias?

Lack (or loss) of interest?

 

[Mountainmike]

Lack (or loss) of interest?

I meant bias amongst the daters, not the community here , or at large in the population.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've actually been noticing it more often if somebody slams their head into somehting I can almost feel the impact.

I think that's perceptual empathy rather than body ownership misperception.

 

[Hans Blaster]

His response videos were very good too. He pulled out all the stops and interviewed quite a few of the scientists involved. I think that even before I ran into Professor Dave Bill Ludlow on his YouTube channel along with Dr. Gary Hurd exposed how Tour lied about Jack Szostak. I have not checked the video for bad words so if you want to see it just type in Bill Ludlow Gary Hurd in the YouTube search engine and it should come up.

I've seen at least one of the interviews. Someone should make a professional grade documentary (NOVA, or something similar) on the current state of OOL research. There is a lot of fascinating progress and I think it is underappreciated.

Gary Hurd also joined a forum or two that I belonged to. At one of them, not here, he did not last too long because he did not handle dishonest and ignorance rather well. He made it pretty clear when people were lying or being . . . um less than intelligent.

Just like the fine, simple folk, of Rock Ridge one presumes.

 

[Kylie]

No there are not.
It’s the surprising thing. Push the clearly questionable date one side and all other data fits with hypothesis crucified man in exactly the way Jesus was, and possible origin holy land. A faker in 14th century did not know enough pathology or science, botany or geology to fake it.

I prefer the point of view of the mass of scientists that actually researched it and tested the chemistry/ pathology. Sadly - the one most publicised test was done by people who knew nothing about the shroud, other than wanting to promote AMS, and they even failed their own process validation.

I keep hoping someone here will study it. They never do. But here is the botched validation. To understand the context you need to study the shroud conferences such as Trondheim. Under accredited lab practice the actual RC test could not have gone ahead. The process failed validation. No non conformance analysis was done , which is a necessity prior to revaludatuon.

That’s why I prefer forensic reports ( as on so called Eucharistic miracles ) to academic papers. The forensic lab Standards are trustworthy.

https://repository.arizona.edu/bits...2614/971-1222-1-PB.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


But you are right in the sense the discussion does not belong here, except to say the dating fiasco one of the worst examples of bias in action ever seen. Harry Gove , inventor of AMS , convicts himself of that in his own autobiography, as did Halls in a lesser way. Halls certainly did not have an open mind.

It’s something I don’t get.
It’s one thing to oppose a hint of miraculous if it threatens a world view. But in essence the shroud just confirms a historic event, which threatens nobodies world view. So why the reason for bias?

As I said, if you create a thread to discuss this, I'll be happy to explain my point of view.