Fascinating atheist veridical nde conversion

[EssentialSacrifice]

1988 CARBON-14 TEST REFUTED
The 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona Labs used
pieces of the same sample cut from a corner
A paper published in Jan 20, 2005 in the journal Thermochimica Acta by
Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and
lead chemist with the original STURP science team (the 1978 Shroud of
Turin Research Project, involving approximately 35 scientists directly
examining the Shroud for five days), has shown conclusively that the sample
cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth
that was re-woven during the middle ages. Here are some excerpts:
"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area, coupled with
microscopic and microchemical observations, prove that the radiocarbon
sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The
radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the
shroud."
"As part of the Shroud of Turin research project (STURP), I took 32
adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles
in 1978." "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and
particulates".
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated
by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen
produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978...
The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens, gave the test [i.e. tested
positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes.
The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud
indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin
in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very
low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have
become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the
time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins
of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would
have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the
shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud
samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test
[i.e. tests negative]."
"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test
[i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the
kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-
years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions
about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."

from here ... again ... http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

don't know about woo woo ... maybe read the entire article and see all the other source content other than the publisher ... or maybe do a little leg work of your own ...

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... m%20shroud

[Audie]

Www.newgeology is a classic example of a woo woo site.

You could hardly do worse if the hope is to win peoplr to the "shroud is real" camp.

Rolling eyes heavenward in mock resignation is not acceptance!

It would behoove one who knows not what woo woo is, or how to seek
data from sources bettervthan a tabloid, to do some legwork.

If no respectable outfit will publish something, that should be resd as a sign.

The Societ of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Bulletin, say, for articles on thousands of years old dinosaurs.

"Woo-woo" people will cry conspiracy.

I say the articles published shall be known by the company they keep.

[PaulSacramento]

I assume you decided to ignore the links I posted?

You made the claim about the labs' radiometric dating: "numerous protocols were violated".

I asked you the following and you have not yet responded:
Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position. Then pick your best link (or maybe two) that supports your position, so that I can respond.

And are you claiming the cloth sample was from a 14th century repair? If so, then how were all the labs able to accurately date the sample to the 14th century?! If not, then state your claim clearly and concisely. Then pick your best link that supports your position.

We cannot carry on a meaningful discussion, if your Trump-ian strategy is to ignore responses to your own statements.

I assume you wrote this BEFORE you checked ALL the links I posted for you?
If not I can only assume you either didn't bother to read them, didn't understand them or simply are being argumentative.
Either way I am NOT going to do any more of your leg work for you.

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

Why am I not surprised to find that it is a woo woo site?
Your oh- so -impeacable source will also debunk evolution with the
"Theory of shock dynamics".
Article on how dinoszurs died out only a few thousand years zgo.
Who knows what other marvels await those who credulously venture into their site!

The "shroud" may be real, but with friends like "newgeology.us"
who needs skeptics?

You know what committing a "genetic fallacy" is, right?
You have just committed it.

[PaulSacramento]

http://Www.newgeology is a classic example of a woo woo site.

You could hardly do worse if the hope is to win peoplr to the "shroud is real" camp.

Rolling eyes heavenward in mock resignation is not acceptance!

It would behoove one who knows not what woo woo is, or how to seek
data from sources bettervthan a tabloid, to do some legwork.

If no respectable outfit will publish something, that should be resd as a sign.

The Societ of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Bulletin, say, for articles on thousands of years old dinosaurs.

"Woo-woo" people will cry conspiracy.

I say the articles published shall be known by the company they keep.

And all the OTHER sources?

Again, genetic fallacy on your part.

[EssentialSacrifice]

audie wrote:
I say the articles published shall be known by the company they keep.

I say, don't judge a book by it's cover … all following (credential emphasis) from woo-woo. I chose this article because it really is a pretty well contained over all explanation of the Shroud to date. It was never meant to elicit your reaction, so here's some of the academia you may or may not respect …

1. A paper published in Jan 20, 2005 in the journal Thermochimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area, coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations, prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin


Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194

Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009

Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France

1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61- 70; 2)


Italian scientists working at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted experiments on their own time between 2005 and 2010, applying ultraviolet radiation to strips of linen to see if they could match the coloration on the fibers of the Shroud of Turin

The technical report: P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni, G. Baldacchini: “Colorazione similsindonica di tessuti di lino tramite radiazione nel lontano ultravioletto: riassunto dei risultati ottenuti presso il Centro ENEA di Frascati negli anni 2005-2010” RT/2011/14/ENEA (2011).

The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.). This blood type is rare (about 3% of the world population)

Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (University of Western Connecticut) and the late Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood.

Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X and Y chromosomes representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."

Numerous surgeons and pathologists (including Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Medical Examiner - Rockland, New York), Dr. Robert Bucklin (Medical Examiner - Las Vegas, Nevada), Dr. Herman Moedder (Germany), the late Dr. Pierre Barbet (France), and Dr. David Willis (England)) have studied the match between the Words, Weapons and Wounds, and agree that the words of the New Testament regarding the Passion clearly match the wounds depicted on the Shroud, and that these wounds are consistent with the weapons used by ancient Roman soldiers in Crucifixion

The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) on the Cloth was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem. Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel. Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites. Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts. Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth. These are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.

According to Guscin, studies by members of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (Dr. Jose Villalain, Jaime Izquierdo and Guillermo Heras of the University of Valencia) using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy have demonstrated that this Cloth and the Shroud of Turin touched the same face, although at different points in the burial process. They note that the length of the nose on both cloths is 8 centimeters (3 inches). Tradition and historical information support

[Morny]

I assume you wrote this BEFORE you checked ALL the links I posted for you?
If not I can only assume you either didn't bother to read them, didn't understand them or simply are being argumentative.
Either way I am NOT going to do any more of your leg work for you.

You posted links to voluminous claims, some of which were mutually contradictory.

I need to know what your clear and concise specific claim is in order to respond.

What if you had a specific doubt/question about evolutionary phylogenetic trees, and all I posted was a link to Darwin's "Origin of Species" and a dozen articles from the journal "Nature", because I wasn't going to do your legwork?

[Morny]

Morny wrote:
I asked you the following and you have not yet responded:
Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position. Then pick your best link (or maybe two) that supports your position, so that I can respond.

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

What part of "Which protocols were violated? Clearly and concisely state your position." is unclear?

[EssentialSacrifice]

posted 8 days ago by bippy ...

  bippy123 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:25 pm
Here are the protocols violated by the 1978 c14 labs 

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone will declare: “The analysis of carbon-14 seems to have been a mistake, particularly because of prejudices, of which it is useless to speak, because the verdict was decided even before performing the analyses”143.
In the statement of the scientific committee of the International Symposium, held in Paris in 1989, it is written that there are strong reserves on the statistical analysis of the results, especially on the value of chi-squared (χ2) 6.4 for samples of Shroud, which have provided not homogeneous radiocarbon dates. Therefore, the Scientific Committee requested the release of all raw data obtained by the three laboratories and of the commentary written by professor Bray of the “Colonnetti”144. During the International Symposium, held in Rome in 1993, statistician Philippe Bourcier de Carbon listed fifteen points of failure in the radiocarbon history of the Shroud145:
1. absence of a formal report of the sampling;
2. absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging;
3. in the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by
people in charge of sampling;
4. breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating;
5. rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test;
6. refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for
radiocarbon dating;
7. exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who
participated in previous works of STURP;
8. communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior
to testing;
9. intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job;
10. disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings;
11. refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its
official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in
1989);
12. non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures
performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories;
13. unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical
test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud;
14. rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed;
15. rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this
operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
Bourcier de Carbon concludes: “Such a remark of deficiencies remains completely unusual in the context of a truly scientific debate, and one can only deplore this exception to the usual ethics”146.

[PaulSacramento]

I assume you wrote this BEFORE you checked ALL the links I posted for you?
If not I can only assume you either didn't bother to read them, didn't understand them or simply are being argumentative.
Either way I am NOT going to do any more of your leg work for you.

You posted links to voluminous claims, some of which were mutually contradictory.

I need to know what your clear and concise specific claim is in order to respond.

What if you had a specific doubt/question about evolutionary phylogenetic trees, and all I posted was a link to Darwin's "Origin of Species" and a dozen articles from the journal "Nature", because I wasn't going to do your legwork?

I posted those links so you can see the two points of the arguments, so as to not be biased.

I assume you wanted concrete views as to what the C14 tests are questioned.

IF all you want is MY view then here it is:

Number 1 ( and the most crucial) is that samples were taken from only ONE area.
Proper procdure demands that, when possible, multiple samples are taken from multiple areas.
If they were not able or allowed to take form multiple areas then what should be claimed is the simple fact that:
"Of the samples collected in only 1 area of the shroud, we were able to date THAT AREA to the 14th century".
To claim anything else about the shroud is unscientific.
Period.

Just as was stated here:

There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information. –Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008)

and here:

[T]he [1988 carbon 14] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. –Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (Aug 2008)

The simple fact that this most vital and crucial and PRIMARY procedure was not done correctly, calls into question ALL other results.


Of course you can disagree with this, but it is an issue that experts have commented on.


Again, my view is quite simply that the C14 dating is correct and vital in dating any historical artifact ( though it is not a stand alone and is only ONE line of evidence).
BUT, in regards to the Shroud, it is can say is that the pieces from the area of the shroud that they were taken can be dated to the 14th century ( and can not be used to date the WHOLE of the shroud) and since we have historical evidence that the shroud was indeed repaired and cloth add to it in the SAME AREA at around that time period, then all we have is the evidence that the pieces of cloth that were added to the shroud in the 14th century have been dated to the 14th century.
Period.

[Audie]

http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

Why am I not surprised to find that it is a woo woo site?
Your oh- so -impeacable source will also debunk evolution with the
"Theory of shock dynamics".
Article on how dinoszurs died out only a few thousand years zgo.
Who knows what other marvels await those who credulously venture into their site!

The "shroud" may be real, but with friends like "newgeology.us"
who needs skeptics?

You know what committing a "genetic fallacy" is, right?
You have just committed it.

Sure. Calling "fallacy" is such a clever way of getting out of the worthless nature or your woo woo site.

Sometimes comic books get things right, too.

Can you do better than a comic book?

[Audie]

audie wrote:
I say the articles published shall be known by the company they keep.

I say, don't judge a book by it's cover … all following (credential emphasis) from woo-woo. I chose this article because it really is a pretty well contained over all explanation of the Shroud to date. It was never meant to elicit your reaction, so here's some of the academia you may or may not respect …

1. A paper published in Jan 20, 2005 in the journal Thermochimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area, coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations, prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin


Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194

Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009

Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France

1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61- 70; 2)


Italian scientists working at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted experiments on their own time between 2005 and 2010, applying ultraviolet radiation to strips of linen to see if they could match the coloration on the fibers of the Shroud of Turin

The technical report: P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni, G. Baldacchini: “Colorazione similsindonica di tessuti di lino tramite radiazione nel lontano ultravioletto: riassunto dei risultati ottenuti presso il Centro ENEA di Frascati negli anni 2005-2010” RT/2011/14/ENEA (2011).

The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.). This blood type is rare (about 3% of the world population)

Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (University of Western Connecticut) and the late Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood.

Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X and Y chromosomes representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."

Numerous surgeons and pathologists (including Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Medical Examiner - Rockland, New York), Dr. Robert Bucklin (Medical Examiner - Las Vegas, Nevada), Dr. Herman Moedder (Germany), the late Dr. Pierre Barbet (France), and Dr. David Willis (England)) have studied the match between the Words, Weapons and Wounds, and agree that the words of the New Testament regarding the Passion clearly match the wounds depicted on the Shroud, and that these wounds are consistent with the weapons used by ancient Roman soldiers in Crucifixion

The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) on the Cloth was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem. Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel. Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites. Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts. Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth. These are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.

According to Guscin, studies by members of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (Dr. Jose Villalain, Jaime Izquierdo and Guillermo Heras of the University of Valencia) using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy have demonstrated that this Cloth and the Shroud of Turin touched the same face, although at different points in the burial process. They note that the length of the nose on both cloths is 8 centimeters (3 inches). Tradition and historical information support

I am not literally or figuratively reading a book by its cover. Trotting out a platitude
is hardly a counter to the fact that the references come from a dishonest and thoroughly impeached source.

Read the article from the same website on high speed or "impact" tectonics, and how it disproves evolution.

Do you find it equally convincing?

Would you feel it had any effect on the credibility of (name your candidate) if they
started spouting closely reasoned / documented gibberish?

Would the AMA journal lose any credibility if it didnt care who published what, as long as it fit the editorial stance?

Show me "shroud" articles published in a respectable place, or I will just dismiss it as
being on the level of Ron Wyatt claims about finding Sodom and Gomorrah, or gold chariot wheels on the sea floor.

The "shroud" material seems to concentrate in woo woo sites tells me something.
What does it say to you?

[EssentialSacrifice]

audie:
Would the AMA journal lose any credibility if it didnt care who published what, as long as it fit the editorial stance?

no, the but Journal would lose all credibility if the sources for their published papers, doctors et al, were who you represent the above Shroud article sources to be ... and they simply are not. they are all valid well qualified individuals with highly representative and focused degrees.

If you don't think the people and places i referenced from that article are worthy , then so be it ...

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

very clear cut and readily understandable current info on the shroud. if, after reading this....

Paul S wrote:
Then I guess only one question is left to ask: HOW did they do this in the 14th century ?

Why am I not surprised to find that it is a woo woo site?
Your oh- so -impeacable source will also debunk evolution with the
"Theory of shock dynamics".
Article on how dinoszurs died out only a few thousand years zgo.
Who knows what other marvels await those who credulously venture into their site!

The "shroud" may be real, but with friends like "newgeology.us"
who needs skeptics?

You know what committing a "genetic fallacy" is, right?
You have just committed it.

Sure. Calling "fallacy" is such a clever way of getting out of the worthless nature or your woo woo site.

Sometimes comic books get things right, too.

Can you do better than a comic book?

Calling a fallacy a fallacy is a simple statement of fact.
You, like Morny, have been shown VARIOUS cites and citations of experts stating the issues with the C14 dating of the shroud.
What you choose to do with that is your problem.

[PaulSacramento]

I rarely do this but I am gonna put on my moderator hat:

The last few pages have been about the shroud and the perceived issues with the C14 dating.
Questions have been asked and answered with multiple links to various sites.

That is enough for THIS thread.