Life of Brian

[Oracle]

The Dave mole school of illogic.
1/ pick a subject to argue, never an area he knows.
2/ contest everything , doesn’t matter on what basis , creating a haze of contradiction
3/ try to find a detail on which he has material disagreement
4/ then try to pretend the haze of contradiction and focus in a detail somehow invalidates the other argument.

In practice:
Who remembers Dave’s happiness that 35 percent southern Italy youth unemployment was somehow acceptable so long as it wasn’t 40 , somehow invalidated the idea that the euro is failing because of Italian debt as demonstrate in target 2 balance to Germany, now unprecedented levels, and that debt is causing serious hardship. Which it is,
All still true even after moles haze of contradiction.

Or this.
The consensus view by the leading shroud researcher Rogers , collating others work and his own, is the raes area of the shroud is different in character, so the date is not valid. He was sceptical at first, later agreed the date was wrong.

The ones who sampled and dated were amateur in ignoring a previously agreed protocol for sampling across the shroud, indeed ignored anomalies in the samples. Net result they had just one , faulty date.

The overwhelming weight of evidence always did contradict mediaeval dating so the question was why not whether it was wrong, the sudarium shows the shroud is much older.
The mark is inexplicable, an oxidation only closely mimicked by uv laser,

And despite all moles blather all that is still true.

He would rather not accept it.

I prefer to argue on subjects I know something about!

Not worth it.

...and now we're into Phase 3 of the Oracle Cycle. Where he gives up in the face of overwhelming evidence, but retreats throwing his toys out of the pram via personal insults.

[Dave_Mole]

The ones who sampled and dated were amateur in ignoring a previously agreed protocol for sampling across the shroud, indeed ignored anomalies in the samples. Net result they had just one , faulty date.

The people who dated the shroud included one of the inventors of radiocarbon dating.
The 1986 protocol of mutliple sampleswas denied by the owners of the shroud.
There are three dates, from three different labs, all of which are statistically compatible. If you'd read any of the scientific papers about this, you'd know. You haven't as you prefer the made-up science of Rogers et al. Don't come on here acting like the big I-am, when you have clearly ane repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge about the data you pupport to understand, and of the techniques involved.

You really should try reading about this stuff before you post.

Have you found any of those peer reviewed articles yet?

The overwhelming weight of evidence always did contradict mediaeval dating so the question was why not whether it was wrong, the sudarium shows the shroud is much older.

nope, no scientific date for that, so, as a scientist, you should reject it on the basis that it is not proven to be ancient. The "overwhelming" evidence you go on about is pseudo science and you still haven't come up with a single, verifiable, piece of evidence to contradict a medieval date.

I prefer to argue on subjects I know something about!

like the Fourth Riech?

then try to pretend the haze of contradiction and focus in a detail somehow invalidates the other argument.

This is your tactic, not mine. I've pointed to peer reviewed scientific papers. You have had absloutely no response to these, but have banged on and on about "experts" who can't get papers published in peer reviewed journals, and other cranks.

You are a total fantasist.

[Oracle]

If you say so Dave.
Yawn.

The people who dated the shroud included one of the inventors of radiocarbon dating.
The 1986 protocol of mutliple smaples was denied by the owners of the shroud.
There are three dates, from three different labs, all of which are statistically compatible. If you'd read any of the scientific papers about this, you'd know. You haven't as you prefer the made-up science of Rogers et al. Don't come on here acting like the big I-am, when you have clearly ane repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge about the data you pupport to understand, and of the techniques involved.

You really should try reading about this stuff before you post.

Have you found any of those peer reviewed articles yet?


nope, no scientific date for that, so, as a scientist, you should reject it on the basis that it is not proven to be ancient. The "overwhelming" evidence you go on about is pseudo science and you still haven't come up with a single, verifiable, piece of evidence to contradict a medieval date.


like the Fourth Riech?



This is your tactic, not mine. I've pointed to peer reviewed scientific papers. You have had absloutely no response to these, but have banged on and on about "experts" who can't get papers published in peer reviewed journals, and other cranks.

You are a total fantasist.

[Graham Breeze]

If you say so Dave.

Ah we have consensus. Dave is vindicated and you are a braggadocio.

The End?

[Dave_Mole]

If you say so Dave.

see you, then. Bye!

[Oracle]

Ah we have consensus. Dave is vindicated and you are a braggadocio.

The End?

Hardly.

Dave has not cast a single thing I said into doubt, as summarised in my previous post. He even thinks he knows more about the shroud and RC dating than the los alamos physicist who ran and collated the worldwide shroud physics research, such is the arrogance of a mole.

I give up on him.

The only thing he does is spread heat not light, and i cannot be bothered arguing with someone so illinformed and illogical. If his rantings are what he wants to believe good luck to him. I give up.

What he says must be true in the alternative universe of moleworld.

Meanwhile in the real world:

The foremost authority on the shroud and collator of all other scientific work Ray Rogers concluded in the light of overwhelming evidence, that the raes corner (from which the only sample was cut and divided was not representative of the rest of the shroud. Therefore the test date was false. That is the consensus view. And the only view in the light of other evidence, that never did fit the date.

Note the RC testers refused to take advice, they were inn violation of an agreed protocol to sample around the shroud. Nor did they heed any of the red flags which is a basic scientific process error. The RC date is therefore irrelevant and has been discredited. It wasnt the test. It was garbage in , garbage out. Sample not representative.

There was and is so much other evidence (eg sudarium forensic correspondence - which chain of custody is far older), indeed other dating methods that the only question was why RC got it wrong not whether. Whatever the shroud is, is not medieaval, not a forgery and originated or spent a lot of time in palestine. Where is the surprise in that? the weave is first century palestine too.

Then along came an anomalous RC date that was an outlier, now disproven.

The mark is unexplained, and the best candidate from 3d distorition is radiation, the only way the chemistry of a microlayer of oxidation has been reproduced is UV laser.

The point I made to start with was the RC testers were so arrogant and dismissive of the previous work they failed to coopt any of the experts on to the team. They ignored advice. And made a basic schoolboy error in sampling, and in ignoring clear problems with the samples, noted in their reports. Why? because it was all confirmation bias. Once they got a date, they had no interest in dsicovering why no other evidence fitted.

The foremost authority in the UK was harwell on RC, also had far more expereince.. But halls was in some kind of petty turf war in oxford, and didnt even ask Harwell for opinions or advice.

Existing spectroscopy and chemical sampling , microscopy should have told them that part of the shroud was suspect. I doubt they even looked at it. They certainly ignored what the sturp team had said about sampling.

All precisely what I said.

Nothing Mole said changed an iota.
Getting any of that into Moles thick skull is beyond me.

He even had the temerity to state that Ray rogers knew nothing about RC dating either!!!

Why? because he didnt agree with dave moles date or conclusion. Based on no research whatsoever.Confirmation bias by Mole. QED

He is entitled to believe what he wants.
So if he says whatever he says , it must be true in moleworld. It just isnt true in the real world. But I will waste no further time explaining

So "whatever you say" Mr mole.

[TheGrump]

But I will waste no further time explaining

Thank goodness!

[Oracle]

Thank goodness!

On this rare occasion , and perhaps for the first time, I heartily agree with the Grump.

[Dave_Mole]

Dave has not cast a single thing I said into doubt

apart from the peer reviewed evidence. Which you haven't and don't have the ability to argue against.

Ray Rogers concluded in the light of overwhelming evidence, that the raes corner (from which the only sample was cut and divided was not representative of the rest of the shroud.

he is the only person who thinks so. Analysis published in peer reviewed journals has shown otherwise. The material Rogers subsequently discusses has uncertain provenance.

Note the RC testers refused to take advice, they were inn violation of an agreed protocol to sample around the shroud.

This protocol was removed by the owners of the shroud as they saw it as too invasive.

The RC date is therefore irrelevant and has been discredited

an anomalous RC date

Three dates from three labs, following proceedures described by your hero Rogers as "the best in the world".

The foremost authority in the UK was harwell on RC,

R. L. Otlet of the Isotopes Measurement Laboratory, AERE, Harwell was involved in the dating process and is mentioned in the publication of the dates. Clearly you haven't read this.

they had no interest in dsicovering why no other evidence fitted.

They dated some thread from a piece of cloth supplied to them by the owners of the shroud. They followed standard procedures and produced three dates at seperate labs. The dates are medieval. End of story. But not if you really, really want the shroud to be associated with "Christ". THEN you go and try out all sorts of unproven tests on unprovenanced material and can't get the results published in peer reviewed journals because they don't stand up to scrutiny. You really have to be a "believer" to go to such lengths.

Therefore the test date was false. That is the consensus view

This is certainly not the consensus view in the scientific community. Just repeating this does not make it true.

So "whatever you say" Mr mole.

whatever the peer reviewed evidence says. And the rest of the actual scientific community involved.


If we want to talk about arrogance, take a look in the mirror. In the fact of overwhelming, peer reviewed science, you, who describe yourself as a scientist, have cited unreliable, unpublishable data, have tried to undermine a series of scientific processes based on heresay and opinion. You pass off speculation as fact and finally you resort, as you always do, to ad hominin attacks, as nothing you say stands up to any kind of scrutiny. You posts are full of errors and contradictions.

And why are you so determined for the shroud to relate to "Christ"? Because you believe. So scientific rigour goes out of the window. This is why you try to pass this mumbo-jumbo off as fact.

And you really, really can't bear to be wrong, can you? You're a nasty and small minded idiot, you really are.

[Witton Park]

can you go and find a shroud forum and just let us get om with the politics?