Soliton signing out!

Georges dad created in on Seinfeld

And the world was worse for it ever since :-)

I debated you at length about Huckabee in the prez race, and frankly you were one of the most evasive, twisty, button pushing, hack types I’ve ever met on here. I question your intentions and motivations for being here. Not shedding many tears about you going.

Thanks for McCain

1. No, I was told not to post or reply on the Religion Forum.

Not true. On Nov 1, 2008 you were warned by the mods not to post on the Religion Forum again. Many of us saw it and remember it.

5. Swordmaker said my claims were false but would not debate them.

In the interests of truth:

I have debated Soliton on this issue numerous times citing peer-reviewed science published in recognized scientific journals, providing links where available and citations of other peer-reviewed works. I have spent weeks responding to his arguments... arguments he almost consistently has taken from atheist and skeptic sites run by atheists. He has chosen to use ad hominem attacks, insults, and slurs as his debating technique. Anyone who disagrees with him and his sources are "pseudoscientists" and/or "frauds." His claims were, in my opinion, slanderous and libelous. He made them against a man who was dead and unable to defend his reputation and work.

Soliton continually cites out-of-date and falsified conclusions from non-peer-reviewed and/or skeptic sources as though non-peer-reviewed, and subsequently falsified work done 39 years ago—results and claims that every scientist working since then has been unable to duplicate—somehow trumps science done in the last 39 years up to this last year that is more sophisticated, definitive, peer-reviewed, duplicated and published in respected scientific journals.

He ignores anything presented that does not agree with his point of view, regardless of the proofs, claiming ulterior motives and reprehensible conduct as the reasons for such work. He prefers the claims of people with degrees in English who are failed amateur magicians, or those of a few scientists who have not even examined the actual Shroud materials and who working in fields of expertise that are not at all related to the science they are disputing—such as Steven Schafersman, a geologist who maintains a website skeptical about the shroud whose argumentative approach is also filled with ad hominem and calumny against those who happen to disagree with him—over world-class scientists working within their fields of expertise. I simply will no longer waste my time continually reposting the science that has been published only to have it ignored by Soliton who repeats over and over the claims of repudiated researchers.

He began his thread by slurring a well respected scientist, the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist specializing in Pyrolysis chemistry with numerous peer-reviewed articles and many accomplishments to his name. He also claimed a conspiracy of editors at a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conspiracies in the Catholic Church, and deliberate obfuscation and intentional fabrication of evidence by scientists who were "believers," mischaracterizing many people involved in Shroud of Turin research. That is not a proper nor acceptable debating technique. He also immediately slurred me be claiming i do not know a subject I have been studying for over 30 years, and that I refuse to debate his "facts" because of that lack of knowledge, and an inability to refute his claims. I just won't waste my time with him, nor will I put up with his insults and slurs.

His comments were intended to incite anger and dispute. I simply refused to play his game. When I told him not to post his slurs and calumny on the current thread, he immediately did so and essentially called me out. I again refused to play.

He was subsequently given a time-out.

I think that Soliton's decision to broach this subject on Christmas says a lot about his intentions....

Thanks for agreeing

I misread. Too late on the east coast.

1. Unsupported Date Range Estimate.
The date of harvest of the flax used to make the linen in the Shroud, “dH”, would be the date of maximum vanillin content in the lignin and the date vanillin depletion began.
The date that the vanillin was exhausted in the linen fibers, “dE”, could be determined by using Rogers’ depletion rate calculations based on average maximum diurnal storage temperature.
dE - dH = 1319 years (25 °C)
dE - dH = 3095 years (20 °C)
Rogers used these calculations to assert that:
“A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old.”
Rogers states in the article that:
“The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old.”
And:
“No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test.”
And:
“Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old.”
Rogers repeatedly indicates that the vanillin was exhausted at some unknown time prior to his testing. This presents a problem. His date range of 1300 to 3000 “years ago” is dependent on a flawed, possibly unconscious, assumption that dE equaled the date that the tests were conducted. The fact, however, is that the date of exhaustion is unknown and no date range can therefore be determined. Without knowing the value of dE it is impossible to determine the value of dH. The proper scientific conclusion would have been that the date range was 1300 to 3000 years before the date of vanillin exhaustion.

“In 1532 the Shroud was in a fire. It lay folded in a silver casket when the church of Sainte Chapelle in the French town of Chambery burned. The Shroud was saved,. but not before it was scorched by drops of molten silver that left triangular shaped marks along the edges of the cloth. On the basis of the known melting point of silver mixed, as it would have been at the time with some base metal, Rogers estimates that the temperature within the casket reached 200° to 300°C before the Shroud was doused with water. Thus, a calculable thermal gradient existed and serves as the foundation for certain judgments about the nature of the image. Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science,” Science, Vol. 201, 21 July 1978, pp.235-239, pp.236- 237)

Because of the fire that the Shroud had been exposed to, there must have been a temperature gradient, from the hottest portion, where the molten silver burned holes
through the folds of fabric, through the area of scorch, to that portion of the linen which was relatively unaffected. The gradient of temperature, Rogers had calculated, went from about 900°C to well below 200°C. (Heller, J.H., “Report on the Shroud of Turin,” Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.85-86)

STURP physicist Dr. John Jackson and chemist Dr. Keith Propp write that if the temperature incurred by the Shroud was just 200°C that it would lose 95% of its vanillin in a mere 6.4 seconds [Mark Antonacci, Private Internet Debate Challenges Ray Rogers’ Thermochimica Acta Paper, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf]
2. Chain of Custody
One of the disturbing aspects of Rogers’s paper is that his most important findings are based on a sample of unknown provenance. He states in the article:
“On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.”
Apparently he did not receive the samples directly from Gonella, however:
“AMSTAR received the authentic samples from Luigi [Gonella]. Unless he lied again, they are authentic samples” [Raymond Rogers, Ghiberti’s pronouncement on my analyses, Jan. 23, 2005]
This first public mention of the existence of these alleged carbon 14 sample threads appears in the Thermochimica Acta article. Rogers admits that he had no first-hand knowledge of their provenance. Riggi conducted the sample taking in 1988, not Gonella. Gonella was not in a position to “excise” anything from the sample. The sampling of the Shroud was videotaped and witnessed by many, but no witnesses have come forward to corroborate Gonella’s alleged claim.
The carbon 14 samples were photographed at high resolution, but there does not appear to be any threads missing from the weave in the photographs. In short, there is no empirical evidence that the threads in question came from the carbon 14 samples, or even from the Shroud itself. Evidence does, however, exist that Gonella did not have any samples in his possession to share.
One of the many proposed potential candidates for contamination of the carbon 14 samples was “bioplastic” films. This was proposed by a Dr. Garza-Valdes who traveled to Turin in 1993 to seek permission to test the shroud for the films. He was turned down by Cardinal Saldarini, but he somehow came into contact with Gonella:
“However Professor Gonella, who had been Cardinal Ballestrero’s foremost scientific advisor, directed Valdes to Giovanni Riggi, who duly brought his samples out from the bank vault.” [Ian Wilson, British Society for the Shroud of Turin Newsletter no. 43 - June/July 1996]
Certainly if Gonella had threads from the center of the Carbon 14 testing area they would have made better candidates for testing by Garza-Valdes than Riggi’s which came from an adjacent sample. The fact that Gonella turned to Riggi for samples suggests he had none of his own to offer. Regardless, it is clearly the responsibility of the author of a scientific article submitted to a respected peer-reviewed journal to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the samples used are authentic. Rogers simply took someone’s word for it. Thermochimica Acta simply took his.
3. Ethics
At the time of the STURP testing, the Shroud was considered the property of Umberto II, the former king of Italy. Unfortunately, he passed away on Mar. 18, 1983 and left the Shroud to the Holy See in his will. At the time, Cardinal Ballestrero was Archbishop of Turin and Keeper of the Holy Shroud. Luigi Gonella was his Science Advisor and Riggi di Numana assisted Gonella. As a group, they were the primary access to the Shroud. Upon Umberto’s death, however, ownership of the Shroud transferred to the Vatican causing Ballestrero, Gonella, and Riggi to lose control, power, and prominence. NEEDS CORRECTING
But on 1st January of this year (1996), and quite possibly in response to their challenge, Cardinal Saldarini issued a press statement formally requesting the return of all Shroud samples scattered around the world, and expressly forbidding the carrying out of any further tests on these. http://www.shroud.com/bsts4303.htm
September 1995: Cardinal Saldarini issues statement declaring any Shroud samples in circulation other than those taken with official permission for the tests of 1978 as unauthorized. He remarks that ‘if such material exists…the Holy See has not given its permission to anybody to keep it and do what they want with it’ and he requests those concerned to give the piece back to the Holy See. This statement seems clearly to be directed at the samples taken by Professor Giovanni Riggi in April 1988, portions from which were procured in all good faith by Dr. Garza-Valdes. http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

3. Peer Review
Over a hundred researchers and thousands of people who follow shroud research were aghast when, within days of Rogers’ paper, Turin’s Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti pronounced a summary judgment on Rogers’ findings. He said, “I am astonished that an expert like Rogers could fall into so many inaccuracies in his article. I can only hope, indeed, also think that the C14 dating is rectifiable, but not on the basis of the ‘darn’ theory.”

How can Ghiberti possibly know this? He offered no evidence or explanation. So, now, people at the conference wanted to ask him about it. It wasn’t that questions were not allowed at the conclusion of the interview with Rogers. Neither the conference moderator nor the conference sheriff were about for the evening presentation. And Ghiberti, representing Turin’s Cardinal Poletto, could have invited questions and no one would have objected.

Ghiberti walked out.

I think it was meant to be silly. Just for yuks.

You are a horrible incubus that drives people from FR. Congratulations!

Swordmaker, is this your Christmas present to FReepers? Thank you, and you have a very Merry Christmas too.

I had nothing to do with it. I have agreed with Soliton on other threads... ones not associated with his fixation on the Shroud of Turin being a fraud. However, his debating technique on Religious related threads is very questionable. After being repeatedly insulted, I simply will not respond to him anymore.

You do not know who is who or what is what regarding the shroud. This thread will be deleted.

Thanks.

“Your posting privilege has been revoked.
Reason:
Note: You’ve been warned to avoid posting on Religious threads before, but you continue to harass - for that you get a week-long ban. Do it again, and the ban will be permanent”

1. No, I was told not to post or reply on the Religion Forum. Swordmaker’s article was posted on General/Chat .
2. I posted an article under Bloggers/Personal at 8:51pm about the Shroud and pinged Swordmaker
3. At 10:03 Swordmaker responded to my ping, criticized my post, and created his own post at 10:10 where he pinged his Shroud ping list and told them to ignore my post. He did not ping me even though he used my screen name.
4. At 10:38, Alex Murphy pinged me to let me know about the other thread.
5. Swordmaker said my claims were false but would not debate them.
6. I have citations for all of my claims except the last one, which was a conclusion, based on the rest.
7. Once again, I followed all of the rules; even the ones that only apply to me only to have an Admin Moderator take the side of the person violating the letter and spirit of the rules.
8. If Swordmaker wanted to avoid me, all he had to do is post on the Religion Forum and he could have spread his propaganda without any interference from me.
9. Since my interests outside of conservative politics are Evolution and the Shroud, I will not be able to post under your no religion thread policy. The same religious types show up on those threads and turn the subject to religion.
10. I have driven a lot of discussion on FR over the last 10 years. Now you have banned me without banning me.
11. Posts supporting my contentions are below.

Ray Rogers Shroud of Turin Fraud on Tonight (Discovery)
12/14/2008 | Soliton
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:51:26 PM by Soliton

To: LeGrande; Swordmaker; betty boop
Shroud ping

6 posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:59:39 PM by Soliton (This 2 shall pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Alamo-Girl; albee; AnalogReigns; AnAmericanMother; Angelas; AniGrrl; annyokie; Aquinasfan; ...
Shroud documentary on Ray Rodgers findings on the Shroud of Turin... PING!
Please ignore Soliton’s anti-shroud screed posting.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.

2 posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:12:10 PM by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is “AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Swordmaker; Soliton
Please ignore Soliton’s anti-shroud screed posting.
I sure hope you pinged him to that comment.

3 posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:38:48 PM by Alex Murphy ( “Every country has the government it deserves” - Joseph Marie de Maistre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Alex Murphy
I sure hope you pinged him to that comment.
No, I did not.

9 posted on Monday, December 15, 2008 12:04:57 AM by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is “AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Opuses don’t count over at DC for that laurel wreath?

Do you need a banning for that?

Sorry, I don’t hit the abuse button for personal attacks against me.

“And there was much rejoicing throughout the land” *ping*.

You are the poster person for abuse. You reply when people ask you not to, You are a horrible, creepy snot that drives good conservatives from FR.

Soliton. I hope you will reconsider and advocate your positions. Do so with consideration to others and armed with truth and logic. I will be glad to discuss any of these matters with you, but they are not silly subjects. Ideas like you hold have consequences. Ideas like I hold have consequences. I used to be not unlike you in my positions, many, many years ago. Whatever you do, I hope you will be incisive in analysis, and most of all profoundly honest with yourself, notwithstanding evidence which is contrary to your desired outcome. YOu may or may not know Einsein held great contempt for the notion of origin of the universe ex nihlo. So much so that he created a fictitous cosmological constant which he knew was an error. He later said it was the biggest mistake of is professional life. Later he said as irritating as it was, he said he "wanted to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Though his belief came to become a pantheistic belief, he was still looking for the truth. I hope you find it, and if you change your mind I will welcome the discussion.

May the wind always be at your back.

This thread will be deleted.

Doesn't matter. There will be copies floating about in ether.

Good luck with the fundraisers Bishop.

You reply when people ask you not to,

Post on the open forum and you get responses.

Besides, I recall you stating that you were not going to be responding to me any more.