Posted on 04/13/2004 2:52:34 PM PDT by shroudie
Orion, Orion, Orion.
We DO know that definitively. What we don't know is if the rest of the Shroud will date similarly to the NON-representative patches. The bulk of the evidences says that it will not. Since we don't know that, the age of the patches has no probitive value for the age of the rest of the shroud.
I, for one, would love to have a new Carbon 14 test of an area that is unambiguously part of the original Shroud... not a patch added at an unknown time.
The CORRECT form of this statement for it to be true is "There are currently no starships on Earth that I know of."
What is "not yet presented" about being published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals? How much more does it NEED to be presented before Orionblamblam is satisfied that A does not equal B? Does it have to be on the front page of the New York Times and be the lead story on CBS Evening News?
Do you know how stupid your claims sound?
Highly unlikely. There would have been no need for a medieval hoaxer to have used a cloth from Jerusalem when any local cloth would have sufficed to hoodwink the populace of the period. But it is a hypothesis.
2: The shroud hoax painting was created int he Jerusalem region for sale to a gullible pilgrim.
Even more unlikely as the Jersusalem area was controlled by devout (should I say, rabid) Muslims, who were totally iconoclastic. Any artist making a representatation of any animal or human would have been killed. But it is a hypothesis.
3: The plants that produced the pollen may now be found only in the region of Jerusalem... but 650 years ago, when the climate was different (just getting over the Little Ice Age), that may not have neen the case.
It would have been COLDER in Lirey, France, if that were the case... and the plant life would have been more related to plants that live in more northern climes today. But it is a hypothesis.
You left out a few:
4. Weary pilgrim, returning from the Holy Land, stop to venerate the shroud, and shake off their dusty, pollen infested cloaks over the Shroud.
5. The scientists (this is Joe Nickell's calumny) salt the Shroud with pollen from Jerusalem so they can find them and claim authenticity.
6. Your medieval artist had a bottle of mid-eastern and Turkish pollen samples among his artistic supplies and deliberately put them there to bamboozle those pesky scientist of the 21st Century who would be able to identify them.
7. Pollenic teleportation.
I think so too.
I am beginning to appreciate just how truly dense you are, Orionblamblam.
At this point we must ask ourselves is it true density, or is it intentional obstructionism?
In 30 of the 132 posts on this thread, either Shroudie or I have responded to your dense refusal to recognize the fundamental rule of SAMPLED TESTING: The subset to be tested must IN ALL WAYS be representative of the superset for the findings of the sample to be extended to the superset. If it can be shown, IN ANY WAY, to be NOT representative then the results apply only to the sample and cannot be extended to the superset.
Let's try another analogy.
This situation applies in political polling as well.
A political organization (let's say they are a fictitious party called DemocRats) decides to poll the population of a city (the superset) to find out who they will vote for in the next election. There are two ways they can do this.
1. They can ask every citizen of the city how they will vote; or
2. They can ask a representative sample (the subset) of the citizens how they will vote and extend the answers to the entire population.
Since it is too expensive and time consuming to poll the entire population, they elect to poll a "representative" sample of 1000 persons. They contract with a polling company with the instructions to be sure they have a "statistically" valid sample group. The managers of the company prepare an elaborate sampling protocol to assure an accurate sample.
Three days later, the polling company comes back with a report that John Kerry will get 95% of the vote, George Bush, 2%, and 3% are undecided. The DemocRats gleefully hold a press conference and triumphantly writes these percentages on a black board. They happily announce the finding they really wanted to find. The NY Times, and CBS News lead with the story.
Meanwhile, another fictitious political organization (let's call them Republicans) who have not previously polled this city, look at the results and scratch their heads.
"How can this be?" they wonder. "Other evidence points to this being a conservative city which has voted Republican in every election since Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency," they logically point out. Just driving around town they see a preponderance of "Bush in 2004" Lawn signs and bumper-stickers. They ask, "How can only 2% be voting for Bush???"
Investigating the discrepancy, expert pollsters and statisticians from well respected polling companies hired by the Republicans, re-examine the raw sample data on which the original company based its findings. They look deeper in to the sample and the sampling methodology. They talk to the samplers.
They discover that, unbeknownst to the DemocRats, and even the statisticians of the polling company, the crew chief of the polling team tossed out the elaborate protocol: to save time, he would have his crew just ask the first 1000 people they found, how they were voting.
As he walked out of the office, he noticed a large group of people entering the City Arena across the street. He sent his crew over to poll the people as they entered the building. In a few hours, the crew had finished the 1000 questionaires and the crew chief happily walked back to the company and turned in his raw figures to the perfectly honest statisticians, who process the data and provide it to the DemocRats who announce it.
After some diligent research, the above facts of about sample were discovered and it was further discovered that the meeting that was taking place in the City Arena that day was the annual National Education Association Convention.
Were the people in that building citizens of the city (a subset of the population to be polled)? NO! Were they statistically "representative" of the population of the city? NO! Were the results "valid" for the entire population??? NO!
A SAMPLING ERROR HAD BEEN MADE! The results of the political poll of the city are invalid. The actual voter preferences are still UNKNOWN!
The Republicans hold a press conference. FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and The Washington Times attend an lead with the story. The NY Times and CBS News ignore the findings. The Statisticians publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal of statistics.
Later, in a political discussion forum, Cynthia McKinney, rejects the findings of the Republicans and the expert Statisticians because the Statisticians, she claims, are "biased" toward "conservatism". She demands: "Show me PROOF that the population of the city is not also going to vote for Kerry by 95%! Show me the studies that have conclusively proved that the population of the city is different from the members of the NEA attending a meeting in the city!"
Do you see how stupid and silly Ms. McKinney's position is?
Do you perhaps see yourself taking the McKinney position in THIS discussion? That is what you are doing.
My density is somewhat less than 1 gram per cubic centimeter.
So is the stuff that fills any hot air balloon, Orion.
Ah. So... since the material the pockets of my bluejeans are made of is not the same material as the rest of the bluejeans... it is impossible to make a determination that the pockets and the bluejeans were made in the same century. It's all so clear to me now.
In reference to the above blithering: If it were the lint in your pockets that was tested, and it tested to the first tuesday of last month, all it tells you is the age of the LINT. It says NOTHING about whether your jeans were made last month, last year, the last decade, or the last century. To assume that it does is error. Similarly, if you test the age of the blue jeans, the information gained says NOTHING about the age of that dried apple core in the pocket, or the wad of wriggley's gum stuck to the rear end.
That simple fact is what eludes you or that you deliberately are failing to understand.
Rest of your cut-and-paste post snipped, and left unread beyond the first few non sequitur sentences.
I assure you, the only thing I cut-and-paste in that post was to quote you. Everything else is original Swordmaker. That is also true of most of the other replies I have posted on FreeRepublic. You should have noticed that both Shroudie and I attempt to credit the sources. You, of course, never have in your cut-and-pastes.
Well, at last we have an admission. YOU DON'T READ. Thank you. Now Shroudie and I know why you seem to not understand English, the scientific method, or the rules of experimental protocol and never respond to the facts we have so dilligently and repeatedly tried to spoon feed you. I am sorry if we have challenged your attention span.
There are none so blind, Orion, as those who will not look.
The facts mean nothing to Orionblamblam. You won't even bother to read them because YOU have your mind made up, wrapped up, scotch taped up, encased up in Depleted Uranium, and tied up with a pretty pink polka-dot bow.
You would have made an excellent OJ simpson Juror.
Now you are merely trying to be irritating. You don't even do that very well. It is obvious you have no salient arguments on your side. This has ceased to be fun. Sad
As to my statement "you don't read," YOU admitted it. You said ". . . left unread beyond the first few non sequitur sentences." Several times on this thread you have claimed not to have said something and had to backtrack when the evidence of your own words were presented to you. Each time it had to do with your "agenda."
You demand unreasonable "proof" for something that does not need to be proved to invalidate the carbon 14 test. NO ONE on here agrees with your repeated demands that we provide this proof that the rest of the shroud is the same age as the patch.
Most reasonable people accept the fact that something that is NOT THE SAME is NOT THE SAME. It is we reasonable people who understand that if you test something that is NOT THE SAME you have not tested properly. WE reasonable people understand that if the sample has been shown to be non-representative, the results cannot be relied on to prove anything about the thing it should have represented. Shroudie and I have given you several examples of why such a protocol cannot and does not work but you persist in claiming and demanding the same proof that is not required to invalidate the test.
Now you have pulled out a brief CV for yourself that we have no way of checking and which I have no way of knowing is true to attempt to give yourself gravitas and to attack me as a "Buffoon." That is mere puffery. You claim to be an "engineer" and now you claim to be an "author" and an an "inventor" but yet you cannot understand basic logic and experimental proofs required to be able to extend a sampled test to the general? Something does not connect here. Quite frankly, Orion, I don't believe you.
All I can work with is what you have posted here. That has been snide and denigrating twaddle. It is often insulting to those who disagree with you. You do it deliberately. You present yourself as an adolescent, thumbing his nose simply for the fun and havoc he can wreak.
When we finally tire of your game and call you on it, you yell "SEE! SEE! That man is a 'Zealot" and this one is a "Buffoon." When you run out of arguments, you resort to attacking the person.
Your arguments have failed. You have presented NO evidence for your positions, no evidence to counter the peer-reviewed evidence we have presented. If anyone on here is a "zealot" and a "buffoon," it is you.
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.