Posted on 08/11/2019 9:14:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
SHEESH! Here we go again. You’ve been told before all that I’m going to tell you below, Mojo. . . But you don’t want to listen or learn.
YOU are the one misrepresenting the facts, Mojo. The facts are just the opposite of what you are claiming.
Casabianca did not find the C14 raw data were “too narrow” but rather, with a 95% degree of certainty, that the each sub-sampe’s dating data were TOO WIDELY DISTRIBUTED to be representative of the object being dated . . . And each test result’s degree of confidence did not overlap another, and were, in fact, not even close misses.
There is no such thing as “too narrow,” which would be a good result in C14 testing, but too wide is BAD, very BAD. . . especially with a 95% degree of certainty. It means that the sample was SEVERELY CONTAMINATED!
The statistical test, the Chi Squared Test, is one that is REQUIRED in any C14 test to assure that the sample being test can be assumed to be homogenous to the object being dated, and the testing labs, especially the one in charge of the overall protocol HAD TO KNOW the sub-samples FAILED that Chi Squared Test on the samples they tested. It’s a simple statistical test.
The proof they DID KNOW is that they buried the raw data from the three testing labs and only released the averaged conclusion data. . . and stonewalled ALL researchers who asked to see that raw data, a normally routine request in science so raw data can be tested for accuracy in peer-review. The control lab stone walled those requests for 30 years! Why? Because they knew they had committed a scientific fraud.
It took a legal action from Casabianca to get them to release those data.
Casabianca, being a real scientist mathematician, of course will not state categorically that a statistical finding with a 95% certainty proves that the C14 dating precludes a 14th century dating result, because that is still a possibility. The test doesn’t prove or disprove the age of the Shroud.
The test just proves that the sample tested was not what it was purported to be, a representative sample of the Shroud of Turin, homogenous with it, and therefore equivalent in age of the main body of the entire Shroud, and since it failed the Chi Square test, any dating conclusion from that sample could not be possibly be accurate for what it was supposedly representing. Casabianca is simply stating the Shroud may still be a 14th century artifact, but you can’t prove that with the 1988 C14 test, because, with a 95% certainty, you did not test a provable piece of the Shroud of Turin in that test, you tested something else or something that was so contaminated with something(s) with an unknown provenance with an unknown age(s). He can have no provable opinion on the age of the Shroud so he rightly took none.
What semimojo isn’t telling you is that Casabianca found that the Chi Squared testing between the sub-samples CUT FROM THE SAME MASTER SAMPLE, known for a fact to be certainly a supposedly homogenous sample of itself, not a single sub-sample passed the Chi Squared test as being homogenous with any of the other sub-samples. There was so much difference in age contamination levels between the sub-samples they illogically could have come from completely different sources!
This is why the control lab was hiding those data. . . it shows that IF they had followed standard C14 testing protocols, as they would be required to do the Chi Squared statistical test, THEN they HAD TO KNOW their sample was contaminated, but yet they continued with the reporting their findings anyway, knowing it was garbage instead of reporting that fact.
Semimojo, you can’t see scientific fraud when it’s right parked on your nose.
Madame Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, again. She had them infuse the reliquary with a carbon based anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-pest spray/gas that is, IIRC, Flurocarbon based, that she uses with more modern cloth for preservation purposes as part of her 2002 “Shroud Restoration Project” which was done without the input of any real scientists. This procedure had the effect of infusing the Shroud with new carbon of unknown provenance and dating.
I thought they washed it and it’s no good for any aging techniques anymore.
So then what of the claim that he concluded fraud?
The test just proves that the sample tested was not what it was purported to be, a representative sample of the Shroud of Turin, homogenous with it, and therefore equivalent in age of the main body of the entire Shroud, and since it failed the Chi Square test, any dating conclusion from that sample could not be possibly be accurate for what it was supposedly representing. Casabianca is simply stating the Shroud may still be a 14th century artifact, but you can’t prove that with the 1988 C14 test, because, with a 95% certainty, you did not test a provable piece of the Shroud of Turin in that test, you tested something else or something that was so contaminated with something(s) with an unknown provenance with an unknown age(s). He can have no provable opinion on the age of the Shroud so he rightly took none.
I don't care about the age of the shroud. It has nothing to do with my faith or lack thereof.
I care about the dishonest claims of Myra(h) Adams which you don't address.
Why?
I know, which is why I didn't say anything about the raw data. I talked about the possible range of dates reported by the researchers.
Semimojo, you can’t see scientific fraud when it’s right parked on your nose.
Maybe, but if the case was so clear cut I'm not sure why you would feel the need to misrepresent what I said.
‘...demonstrating that whatever caused the image came from deep within the body.’
which is what, exactly...? and be precise...
Assume the shroud is a medieval fraud. Then how was it made? The studies in the 1970s proved it was not a painted image and explanations of how it could have been made by other methods using only medieval technology also don’t match the close examination of the shroud. More important is why would a medieval forger go to the effort of producing an image that defied 20th century technology to explain when at the time any crude image would have been accepted to the profit of the forger.
Yes, it should be tested, and properly this time.
I’ll be happily surprised if it happens.
Why should I care about the claims of ONE blogger/journalist who claimed fraud in an article. I can make my own judgements on the scientists who obfuscated the findings, hid the data, and refused legitimate researchers and scientists reasonable requests for access to the data they had a right to access, and stone-walled that access for thirty years. That SMELLS of scientific fraud on a major scale. . . especially when the C14 testing protocol has safeguard tests in place to prevent such major testing errors that will make it OBVIOUS that the tested sample is not representative of the object intended to be dated, tests that are mandatory in the protocols, so the testers had to know their data was either flawed, their tests were flawed, or their sample was compromised. THE managers of the Shroud C14 testing chose to go ahead with their garbage report when there was no doubt they had to know they could NOT have gotten an accurate date from their flawed sample and the flawed data their tests produced. That is scientific fraud.
Although he was not the first to raise the failed Chi Square tests, having actual access to the raw data, Casabianco exposed the smoking gun in an extremely blatant fashion that any honest scientist can read and understand. That evidence alone is the cry of deliberate fraud. Quod Erat Demonstratum.
Casabianco’s peer-review research and published paper speaks for itself in scientific and mathematical terminology, and indicts the 1988 C14 managers of scientific fraud with their own acts and the evidence of 30 years of deliberately hiding the data that would show the world their crime. It’s an indictment of those who did the acts and buried the evidence for as long as they could before someone with gumption (and money) went before a court of law and compelled them to provide data, the smoking gun evidence of what they had no right to suppress from the world.
Casabianco’s paper merely lays out that evidence in writing, an indictment, starting with the legal methods he had to use to even GET those data which they buried, data that should have been freely published as part of their work with the original article back in 1988. Instead, these C14 Shroud test managers opted to hide it and stonewall the proof of their perfidy for political or religious motives for as long as they could get away with it.
Myrah Adams interprets that scientific and mathematical jargon into English for those who can’t read and understand it, obviously such as you.
You're the one who responded to my comment which was all about her veracity, nothing else.
Casabianco’s peer-review research and published paper speaks for itself in scientific and mathematical terminology...
Myra(h) doesn't seem to think so. She has to lie about conclusions of fraud.
Myrah Adams interprets that scientific and mathematical jargon into English for those who can’t read and understand it, obviously such as you.
It doesn't take understanding of scientific jargon to recognize dishonest mis-characterizations of an honest scientist's findings.
Why are you defending this?
This is simple. Did Casabianca’s study “conclude” there was fraud?
“Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us! ... Take the shoes and follow Him!”
WOW! Why does this matter so much to you, you who claims to NOT follow or pay attention to Shroud news? What is this, three threads you’ve infested with your crusade attacking this blogger/journalist, whom you accuse of lying about the very factual interpretation of the evidence laid out in Casabianco, et al, in a peer-reviewed peer-reviewed paper which proved (Please follow the chain of logic):
(1) the data did not at all support the dating conclusions so gleefully announced by the Controlling Managers of the 1988 C14 Shroud testing in 1988; and
(2) that those self-same managers sequestered the very same raw data for thirty years, impermissibly denying all legitimate requests for access from qualified scientists IN THE FIELD of C14 studies, not to mention dozens of other qualified researchers, that would have conclusively shown to all experts and even knowledgeable lawmen the falsity of their claimed conclusions: and
(3), that being that standard C14 testing protocols require that the normal Chi Squared statistical test be applied to all C14 test samples test to assure that the tested sample is, in fact, homogenous with the item intended to be tested, and
(4), if the 1988 C14 Shroud Test Managers were following normal C14 testing protocols with the Shroud test samples the must have done the Chi Squared statistical testing of their results; then
(5), it inevitably follows, as day follows the sun rising in the real world for everyone but semimojo, that the 1988 Shroud C14 Test Managers received the results of those Chi Squared statistical tests and had to have known; that
(6) the test results were fatally flawed due to failing the Chi Squared test, yet, semimojo;
(7) the 1988 Shroud C14 Test Managers, despite knowing for a fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a 95% certainty, that their three testing labs had each tested samples that could NOT be factually certified to be at all homogenous with the item intended to be dated, i.e. the Shroud of Turin, they;
(8), went ahead and announced their bogus dating based on data they absolutely knew to be useless for dating the Shroud of Turin.
A scientific paper, even a mathematical paper will only present the findings, the research, the evidence and the math, the irreducible truth. It is for others to take those findings, those data, and make judgements such as guilt. I find the managers of the 1988 Shroud C14 dating to committed scientific fraud on the public. I think they wanted their day in the limelight, their fifteen minutes of fame, and being atheists, an opportunity to tweak the noses of Christians and the Catholic Church in particular.
Confirmation bias played a big role and a lack of seriousness another, which was demonstrated by their willingness to break protocols from the first cutting of the sample from the Shroud. They did not look on it as the would if they were dating the wrappings of some unknown Egyptian Pharaoh. No protocol bending would have been countenanced in that dating, but here, for some reason it was “A-OK.”
It doesn't take understanding of scientific jargon to recognize dishonest mis-characterizations of an honest scientist's findings.
No one is mischaracterizing Casabianco, et al’s work and paper except you. Tristan laid out a Prima Facie case that these guys were playing fast and loose with the reputation of scientists everywhere. Casabianco did it in a polite and scientific way, but he did it in a way that does in fact need the ability to read scientific jargon to understand. In that jargon, he blistered them. He reamed them a new one, but “oh, so politely.” YOU just don’t grasp what was in the paper. It is a severe an A$$ whupping as you’re likely to see in the rarefied realms of academia! And it is a calling out of fraud. . . Deliberate, knowing fraud.
I quote you verbatim from your post #23:
Casabianca concluded that the claimed range of possible dates for the shroud was too narrow because of misapplied statistical analysis.
Where did I misrepresent you? Casabianco’s entire paper is BASED on getting the raw C14 test data and running the Chi Squared tests every-which-way-from-Sunday on that raw testing data. YOUR claim about “too narrow date ranges” has nothing to do with the thrust of Casabianco’s findings which found just the opposite! The raw data showed the sub-sample date ranges were too widely spread out for any of the sub-samples to be even remotely related to any other sub-sample. That’s not narrow.
There is no possible way to misrepresent what you said. You misrepresented Casabianco’s study and paper, completely. Have you even read that paper? It’s behind a paywall, so I doubt it.
The one lying and misrepresenting things on this thread appears to be you.
If we knew that, then we could answer the number one question of what created the image and what kind of energy attenuated in just ~15 centimeters (or converts to something else, or has a half-life that results it it dissipating by the time it travels that distance in a collimated vertical vector, or. . . ). You see the problem . . .
How far down the thread will I have to look to find the “Not this; uh; stuff again!” guy?
(And people think that Global Warming is man-made; too)
The Bible records that about 75-100 pounds of spices had been applied to them, so they'd be pretty heavy to lug around.
"Afterwards Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jewish leaders, boldly asked Pilate for permission to take Jesus' body down; and Pilate told him to go ahead. So he came and took it away. Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night, came too, bringing a hundred pounds of embalming ointment made from myrrh and aloes. Together they wrapped Jesus' body in a long linen cloth saturated with the spices, as is the Jewish custom of burial. The place of crucifixion was near a grove of trees, where there was a new tomb, never used before. And so, because of the need for haste before the Sabbath, and because the tomb was close at hand, they laid him there" (Jn.19:38‑42 TLB).
John 20:6
Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb.
He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head.
The cloth was folded by itself, separate from the linen.
Oh YEAH!
UNcollimated Horizontal Vectors will be DEMANDING that their story be told as well!
There are only two answers:
or...
We don't know.
Now then; just HOW will the world be changed with either?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.