Paging Dr. Towe...
John P. Boatwright
I took the time to send an email to George Rossman at Caltech,
that email's content is as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello George,
I am in a discussion with a Dr. Ken Towe where there is a paper
out saying that you measured and dated both ends of a thread
reportedly extracted from the Shroud of Turin. Said paper is on
the internet at:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf
Page 12 says you were confirmed as having done such a
measurement with FTMS. I understand radiocarbon testing,
I did not know it could be done with FTMS.
If the paper above is accurately describing your work, that's
very interesting... if not... again, very interesting for all
the opposite reasons.
I hope I have not taken too much of your time, and that
you might have a minute to reply concerning this.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So... Ken... If Rossman replies and confirms, fine, if he
denies... well, then Mr. Barrie Swartz at shroud.com will need
to modify the site a little, etc...
I'd expect though that Barrie might have already confirmed,
along with Raymond Rogers... and Alan Alder... and uh... all
those people at the meeting where the paper was presented...
But they might not have... maybe all of them were unable to
understand what the paper said, and simple took it at face
value, from people they trusted... we'll see... or not...
Mr. Rossman might be flooded with spam, he might not ever
see the email asking about such... or he's too busy grading
papers... or off writing papers, or making measurements...
that guy is incredibly busy... it'll be shear luck if he
reads the email, or replies to it.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Kenneth M. Towe
Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
> So... Ken... If Rossman replies and confirms, fine, if he
> denies... well, then Mr. Barrie Swartz at shroud.com will need
> to modify the site a little, etc...
>
> I'd expect though that Barrie might have already confirmed,
> along with Raymond Rogers... and Alan Alder... and uh... all
> those people at the meeting where the paper was presented...
>
> But they might not have... maybe all of them were unable to
> understand what the paper said, and simple took it at face
> value, from people they trusted... we'll see... or not...
> Mr. Rossman might be flooded with spam, he might not ever
> see the email asking about such... or he's too busy grading
> papers... or off writing papers, or making measurements...
> that guy is incredibly busy... it'll be shear luck if he
> reads the email, or replies to it.
Schwortz, Benford, Marino et al. have no evidence to support their claim!
Caltech has requested that they provide it, if it is true. They have never
provided the so-called tapes...they have none!
This is simply more of the "shroudie" bogus fabrication of evidence. Same as
the bioplastic nonsense of Garza-Valdez. Same as the so-called scientific
"peer-reviewed" study of Heller & Adler where there is not even ONE piece of
documentation to support all of their wild claims. Unlike McCrone's papers,
there is not a single photo, figure, graph, or chart...nothing at all but
bold-faced assertions....designed specifically to counter McCrone!
John P. Boatwright
> Schwortz, Benford, Marino et al. have no evidence to support their claim!
I'll ask again, why hasn't Rossman contacted Barrie Schwortz directly
and told him point blank that he did no such testing?
> Caltech has requested that they provide it, if it is true. They have never
> provided the so-called tapes...they have none!
Did they said that Rossman did the test at Caltech, or that
Rossman is currently AT Caltech?
There is a difference Ken... though you said you know him
directly and I'm assuming that you're saying he's denied
being involved in any testing... right?
> This is simply more of the "shroudie" bogus fabrication of evidence.
I have never once claimed that atheists haven't fabricated
"evidence" to discredit whatever they want to discredit.
The internet is FILLED with atheists writing all kinds of
information set up to discredit whatever they don't agree with.
So ya, it's happened before...
> Same as the bioplastic nonsense of Garza-Valdez.
Which is why Gove, inventor of the C-14 process, agreed that
it can contaminate the samples, and agreed it's there.
You're making false claims there Ken and you're easily
proven wrong on this one.
Tables have turned... the accussor, is doing what he's
accusing others of doing...
> Same as the so-called scientific
> "peer-reviewed" study of Heller & Adler where there is not even ONE piece of
> documentation to support all of their wild claims.
My understanding is that they were chemists and were
studying blood areas, proving that the blood is in fact,
blood, not paint, and was of the AB variety, which
of course, people of that area at that time, tended
to have.
Rogers also did testing to disprove the "paint theory"
of McCrone. Why did you not mention his disproving such
too?
Ken, you seem to be spewing out falsehoods in this
post, or very nearly such.
> Unlike McCrone's papers,
> there is not a single photo, figure, graph, or chart...nothing at all but
> bold-faced assertions....designed specifically to counter McCrone!
Data is data. How you present it, text, graphs, photos,
figures, etc... that's up to the writers of the published
article.
Let me see if I have this straight:
* Dr. Raymond Rogers, cheif chemist at a nation lab
* Dr. Alan Alder (another chemist)
* Dr. John Heller (another chemist)
All claimed that the shroud was NOT a painting,
Alder and Heller proving the blood was blood,
and Rogers proving that the image areas did NOT
have paint on the fibers, but that the fibers
were discolored due to damage to the fibers themselves.
But because McCrone looked through a simple microscope
and claimed "it's paint!", we should ignore three
doctors of chemistry saying it's not painted.
Gosh Ken... that's tough for me to do, to ignore
three doctors of chemisty, and swarms of other
people claiming it's NOT painted... just so McCrone
could said to be "right" in claiming it's a painting.
julia_d...@yahoo.de
You both obviously know a lot about the Shroud of Turin! Could I ask
you both for your expertise opinion about something which strikes me
this past while?
Please look again at the positive image of the Shroud face. I may be
mad but I could take oath on it I see a *crucifix* going vertically
from the middle of the brow down half of way of the nose, and
horizontally over the eyebrows. Of course the natural physiognomic
contours of the human face can accomodate a cruciform shape to a
degree, but it seems to my eyes that a crucifix has actually been
placed atop the face. Such effect is also visible on the negative
image, though with the strong impression that the nose has been broken
(because the crucifix ends before the nose).
What do you think? Am I falling a victim to the Whangerian Rorschach
fallacy???!!! Or do either of you see what I mean? I know that after I
noticed this feature I found it impossible to ignore it when looking at
the Shroud photos from that time. Also do either of you know if this
strange aspect has been discussed otherwise in the sindonological
literature?
Many thanks for your honest reply
Julia
PS Of course to find a Christian *symbol* on a Christian *relic* is
problematic, to speak mildly, for it introduces a big anachronism (i.e.
immediate Christological emblematism before the Christian religion
itself!). But I would nevertheless be grateful if you could give me
some feedback without entering into that key topic of possible
implications for authenticity etc. That is for sure another day's
labor! On that enormous question I still cannot decide with sureness
despite your both excellent arguments...
John P. Boatwright
>
> John and Ken,
I think Ken has vanished.
Probably he found where Adler said what he was claiming
Adler hadn't claimed whatever... it's easy to find such,
probably he found it and got all embarassed for claiming
Adler's statements were falsely given.
> You both obviously know a lot about the Shroud of Turin! Could I ask
> you both for your expertise opinion about something which strikes me
> this past while?
>
> Please look again at the positive image of the Shroud face. I may be
> mad but I could take oath on it I see a *crucifix* going vertically
> from the middle of the brow down half of way of the nose, and
> horizontally over the eyebrows. Of course the natural physiognomic
> contours of the human face can accomodate a cruciform shape to a
> degree, but it seems to my eyes that a crucifix has actually been
> placed atop the face. Such effect is also visible on the negative
> image, though with the strong impression that the nose has been broken
> (because the crucifix ends before the nose).
You can find all kinds of odd forms even in present day stuff.
For example, Werner has a line of luggage with red backgrounds
and crosses all over them... the swiss army knife company, it's
their logo. To me, it reminds me more of the "Red Cross" than
it does of Jesus dying on a cross... but the Werner cross is
reversed, red is white, white is red... IIRC.
If people see that as "Christian"... good luck... it's just a white
plus sign to me... the Red Cross, their's is a red plus sign.
> What do you think? Am I falling a victim to the Whangerian Rorschach
> fallacy???!!! Or do either of you see what I mean? I know that after I
> noticed this feature I found it impossible to ignore it when looking at
> the Shroud photos from that time. Also do either of you know if this
> strange aspect has been discussed otherwise in the sindonological
> literature?
Probably.
The point I was making before, was about Ezekiel's verses's
matching the description, for that, a whole lot of verses
have to match up, or be able to translate to match up, and
they do... which is very tough for a coincidence, or to just
find some odd attribute somewhere. For that "some day off
in the future" for some odd item that matches only one verse,
sure, maybe, but all those verses?
Nah.
The Ezekiel verses match verse after verse after verse.
> Many thanks for your honest reply
What's interesting to me is, no human being could predict
that the stuff would show up, as described, of that description
of the cloth seen present day... burned in by a guy dying...
that just so happened to claim to be the messiah... predicted to
show up... to die for sins.
It's too much of a coincidence.
> Julia
>
> PS Of course to find a Christian *symbol* on a Christian *relic* is
> problematic, to speak mildly, for it introduces a big anachronism (i.e.
> immediate Christological emblematism before the Christian religion
> itself!). But I would nevertheless be grateful if you could give me
> some feedback without entering into that key topic of possible
> implications for authenticity etc. That is for sure another day's
> labor! On that enormous question I still cannot decide with sureness
> despite your both excellent arguments...
Ezekiel doesn't look to be describing any cross on his head.
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
Ken used to claim that photon's didn't have enough energy to cause the
surface effect (a dehydration) that we see on the shroud; but in a paper to
be published in next september's physics essays, i'm publishing a paper on
hydrogen atom that also applies to the humble photon; this shows in part
that photons can have ANY energies and form what can be called a "photonic
chemistry".
i think the fact that this gets a guernsey in a peer-reviewed journal might
raise ken's hackles a wee bit also.
cheers Tony Fleming
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:42C681...@For-God.net...
Kenneth M. Towe
Suggest that you read the Schwortz web-site where the following is rather
well hidden...
³Caltech Responds To Benford/Marino Claims
In my August 16, 2002 update (see below), I included several new Shroud
papers by Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, as well as reprinting an article
that had originally appeared in Il Messaggero, a major Rome newspaper. The
Benford/Marino paper claimed that an unauthorized age dating of the Shroud
of Turin took place in 1982, and stated that the work was done by the
California Institute of Technology (Caltech). The Il Messaggero article
quoted Benford and Marino on this matter.
On October 1, 2002, I received an e-mail letter from Mr. Adam Cochran, the
Intellectual Property Counsel of Caltech, which I am reprinting here in its
entirety:
Dear Mr. Schwortz
I am writing to bring to your attention a number of misstatements that
appear on your web site, regarding the involvement of the California
Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Caltech Professor George R. Rossman in
unauthorized age-dating studies on threads from the Shroud of Turin. These
statements are not true.
Specifically, under the heading "Late Breaking News," there is a report from
the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero in which the following text appears:
"In 1982 a thread of the Raes sample had already been dated with a
radiocarbon method at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech
(sic))."
Elsewhere on your site, there is a PDF file entitled:
"Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin (by)
M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino" which states:
"Unauthorized dating of Raes thread
Heller delivered the thread to the California Institute of Technology
(CalTech (sic)) for dating by world-renowned mineralogist Dr. George R.
Rossman . . . . Rossman cut the thread in half and, using what Adler
described as Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry
(FTMS), dated each end of the thread separately. . . . Rossman found that
the non-contaminated end of the thread dated to 200 AD while the starched
end dated to 1200 AD. . . . . In a personal conversation with one of the
authors (Benford), Rossman confirmed that he was, indeed, the person who
carried out the 1982 C-14 testing on the Raes thread provided by Adler."
The truth is that Dr. Rossman has never worked on the Shroud of Turin (or
threads from it), nor have members of his research group. He has never been
involved in age-dating studies and has no expertise in the area.
Furthermore, the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences has never had
FTMS instruments. In fact, to my knowledge no one at Caltech has ever done
14-C age-dating work at the Institute. The interview alleged to have
occurred between Dr. Rossman and the author of one of the articles, in fact,
never happened.
We ask that you annotate the above mentioned Late Breaking News and
Benford/Marino articles to indicate Caltech's position by linking to this
letter, which is posted on your site. Thank you in advance for your
consideration.
Adam Cochran
The Intellectual Property Counsel
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California 91125²
On 6/25/05 6:59 PM, in article 42BDE0...@For-God.net, "John P.
Kenneth M. Towe
Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
> julia_d...@yahoo.de wrote:
>>
>> John and Ken,
>
> I think Ken has vanished.
JULIA...If you think that I have vanished try contacting Mr. Boatwright
directly. You know that you can contact me because you have done so. Not so
with "God" who labels anyone and everyone who disagrees with him as an
ATHIEST! Unbelievable gall!
Kenneth M. Towe
> My understanding is that they were chemists and were
> studying blood areas, proving that the blood is in fact,
> blood, not paint, and was of the AB variety, which
> of course, people of that area at that time, tended
> to have.
>
> Rogers also did testing to disprove the "paint theory"
> of McCrone. Why did you not mention his disproving such
> too?
>
> Ken, you seem to be spewing out falsehoods in this
> post, or very nearly such.
>
>> Unlike McCrone's papers,
>> there is not a single photo, figure, graph, or chart...nothing at all but
>> bold-faced assertions....designed specifically to counter McCrone!
>
> Data is data. How you present it, text, graphs, photos,
> figures, etc... that's up to the writers of the published article.
CRITIQUE OF “A CHEMICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN”, by J.H. Heller & A.D. Adler. (Canadian Soc. Forensic Sci., 1981, v. 14, pp. 81-103.)
This paper was submitted for publication a month prior to its oral presentation at the 1981 annual meeting of the CSFS in Hamilton, Ontario. It is divided into four traditional, but very poorly defined parts: Abstract/Introduction, Experimental, Results, Discussion. There is significant overlap between these four parts with the last three appearing interspersed everywhere. This jumping back and forth makes for difficult reading, critical or otherwise.
Detailed analysis suffers from the serious defect that the paper contains no data. There are no charts, graphs, photos, or drawings to support the conclusions drawn. The reader is left entirely to accept the observations and interpretations of the authors on faith. There is not a single documentation for any of the tests made. This is certainly contrary to normal scientific procedure and represents a clear difference with virtually all of the McCrone publications, whose results the paper seems dedicated to “proving” incorrect. Surprisingly, there is not even a single reference to, or discussion of, the also totally negative, but otherwise similar forensic studies on Shroud ‘blood’ made by Rizatti et al. in the 1976 Commission Report.
Heller & Adler used ‘sticky-tapes’ taken from the Shroud. Thirty-six ‘sticky-tape’ samples had been taken by Dr. Ray Rogers. These tapes were given to Walter McCrone, who divided them in half and affixed them to glass microscope slides. Rogers gave 22 of his half of the 36 samples to Heller & Adler for their work. The remaining half of the samples were retained by McCrone. H & A tabulate a description of the 22 samples and their identification codes. The samples (5 cm2) were divided into 11 different classes and each sample within these classes was further divided into a minimum of 15 specimens. Each specimen subsample was, therefore, about 0.6 cm. on a side. No subsample numbers were given. No rationale was offered for the implicit underlying (and unlikely) assumption that each subsample was representative of the bulk sample from which it was taken. A large number of tests were made and reagents were used, each being enumerated in several tables.
Each specimen was transferred from the sticky-tape to either white, black, or transparent spot plate wells following toluene dissolution of the adhesive. Under the microscope, “red particulates” were observed and divided into birefringent and non-birefringent types. The former were interpreted to be Fe2O3-coated to linen fibrils while the latter were considered as protein-coated linen fibrils. No photos of either type were figured. After telling the reader that “these particulates were too small for accurate quantitative determination of their optical parameters by the standard methods” H & A went on, nevertheless, to do so. Using the standard Becke line test for comparing indices of refraction, H & A noted that non-birefringent fibrils behaved differently from birefringent fibrils when immersed in benzene (IR = 1.50). This characterization may have been true, but in the absence of photo documentation the interpretation thereof is incorrect. The fibrils were what was observed, not the particulates thereon....the latter being too small to have been clearly identifiable in this connection. Strangely, “Globs”, 5 to 20 times larger that the particulates are described, but these were never similarly characterized. It is noteworthy, however, that no accumulation of bacterial coatings on the fibrils (e.g., “bioplastic”) was reported from their microscopic studies.
A variety of microchemical tests for proteins were used. Several were considered and deemed inappropriate because (1) they stained the cellulose fibrils outside of the ‘blood’ areas and/or (2) they were not sensitive enough (below the 0.1 microgram level). Accordingly, H & A only used very sensitive tests...at nanogram levels. In discussing the results (never figured in the paper; no sample codes given) H & A claimed that “...protein is only found associated with the ‘blood’ areas and is definitely not present as a ‘pigment binder’ in the body image areas above the nanogram level”. A similar conclusion is drawn on the basis of proteolytic enzyme treatment. H & A state: “...fibrils [‘blood’ areas] freed of their coatings using this [enzyme] technique closely resemble the non-image fibrils...”
While these tests appear to cast doubt on the McCrone hypothesis of red ochre in a protein binder, they also cast serious doubt on the subsequently erected “bioplastic” scenarios designed to impugn the carbon isotope results. Had there been any bacteria or fungi, or their residues, on the linen fibrils, either or both the fluorescamine and proteolytic enzyme tests made by H & A should have revealed their presence, especially as these tests were so sensitive. And, as mentioned above, their microscopic studies failed to show such coatings either.
These tests, while very sensitive to proteins, are not specific for blood. Heller & Adler chose (for reasons never explained) not to use any of the blood-specific tests used by either the Rizatti team or any of those used by McCrone. This is a surprising and disturbing omission, and is especially so in the light of their later strongly worded criticism of the Rizatti results. The following excerpt makes clear that the tests used by Rizatti and by McCrone are the ‘standard’ tests...not those used by Heller and Adler.
FROM: FORENSIC SEROLOGY....Dr. T. O’Connor, N. Carolina Wesleyan Univ.
BLOODSTAIN CHARACTERIZATION
“The science of bloodstain analysis somewhat traditionally follows certain steps which serve to adequately describe the various tests conducted. Those steps are:
1. Is the sample blood?
(Steps #2 – #5 omitted here for space)
To answer Question 1, forensic scientists use color or crystalline tests. It used to be that courts trusted police investigators who said they knew blood when they saw it, but that was before Miller v. Pate (1967) where someone got stumped on a cheap lawyer trick with red paint on clothes. The benzidine test was popular for awhile until it was discovered to be a known carcinogen, and was replaced by the Kastle-Meyer test, which used the chemical phenolphthalein. When it comes in contact with hemoglobin (and sometimes potato and horseradish), phenolphthalein releases peroxidase enzymes that cause a bright pink color to form. To detect invisible blood stains, the luminol test is used, which is a chemical sprayed on carpets and furniture which reveals a slight phosphorescent light in the dark where bloodstains (and certain other stains) are present. Long-dried blood has a tendency to crystallize, or can be made to crystallize with various saline-acid mixtures, and the names of various crystal tests are the Teichman test, the Takayama test, and Wagenhaar test.”
Heller & Adler found iron on all parts of the Shroud tested. The uncoated, non-image fibrils “...all give relatively strong positive tests only for Ca and Fe...” Both birefringent and non-birefringent particles gave strong positive tests for iron. No data (e.g., photos) are given. It is simply stated categorically (and qualitatively) that the tests would enable positive identification “...above a level that could produce a colored image to the eye.” No numbers for this level were given to quantify the assertion. Interestingly, neither the Prussian Blue (acidified potassium ferrocyanide) test for ferric iron nor the Turnbull Blue reaction for ferrous iron was made. The former will provide a color reaction for colloidal iron oxides, including hematite, goethite, and ferrihydrite and the finer the crystallite size, the more rapid the coloration. Ferrihydrite is present in the biological iron-storage and blood serum proteins, ferritin and hemosiderin.
H & A provide the reader with a disconcerting number of contradictory statements...
They state (p. 91, 93, 97) that the predominant form for iron was found to be some type of cellulosic bound iron on the fibril surface, found more or less uniformly over the whole Shroud. But, they also say that the “birefringent red coated fibrils give the strongest [iron] test of all” (p. 91). They then say that “...the [linen] fibrils themselves contain more iron than the isolated blood particulates.” These statements are also at odds with their statements on page 97: “iron...was enhanced in the blood image areas..” and “...the X-ray study (ref. 15) showed a uniform concentration of the iron in the image and non-image areas, but enhancement in the areas of blood marks.” No photos to support these statements were included.
They state (p. 87) that the ‘blood’ material could be dissolved in hydrazine while simultaneously reducing any presumptive ferric porphyrins. But then, on page 95 they assert that hydrazine bleaches the yellow body image fibril color...of its iron? On page 91 they argue that aqua regia is required to liberate the iron from heme, but concede on page 91 that all of the particulates are soluble in aqua regia.
The explanation for the ‘ubiquitous’ cellulose bound iron provided by H & A (p. 97-98) doesn’t make sense. They suggest that Fe (and Ca) was chelated to the cellulose fibrils during the flax retting process. This, they note, is a common occurrence and linen makers are even warned against using ferruginous waters for fear of staining the cloth. Although true, the iron that is present in ferruginous waters is already in the ferric form and is not dissolved iron but is present as very finely divided colloidal hydrous ferric oxide particulates (often misnamed ‘ferric hydroxide’ = Fe(OH)3). Thus, a chelated form of iron is unlikely and their theory of migration of chelated iron over the linen to water stained margins to precipitate as Fe(OH)3 is groundless. The later production of birefringent red particulates by such a process is also unlikely, although the agglomeration of ferritin and hemosiderin from serum might do so. Heller & Adler should have known all this already because they made Spanish linen ‘khaki’ experiments where they, themselves, describe the precipitation of “...iron hydroxides onto and into the fibers” (p. 87).
The discussion and interpretations on page 96 (like the protein and enzyme tests described above) are of specific interest to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Heller & Adler argue as follows:
“These conclusions [bile & serum type proteins] are further supported by the UV photographic studies [ref. 67] which show 'serum' halo effects about the scourge marks and at margins of blood clots. That such a chemically and anatomically correct representation could have been produced by any means other than direct contact of the cloth with a wounded human body is difficult to conceive. The detail in the 'scourge' marks as revealed in the fluorescence photography [ref. 67] also supports this suggestion of intimate contact.”
These strongly worded statements, if correct, demand that the linen be tightly wrapped around and/or adhered to the body, both from above and below (there are scourge marks on the back of both legs). This is, of course, completely at odds with the widely heralded STURP conclusion that the image (but not the ‘blood’) was formed by ‘radiation’ acting at a distance from the body. The combination of these two dramatically disparate conclusions is very difficult to rationalize with Shroud authenticity. Both are, however, readily joined by any version of image formation on a flat linen, e.g., by an artist....perhaps using something akin to sulfuric acid (oil of vitriol) as a ‘paint’ medium? Ironically, H & A may have provided, unwittingly, an overlooked mechanism for ‘painting’ the Shroud of Turin. They stated on page 95 the following:
“[Concentrated H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)] deepens the yellow color of image fibrils over about a half hour. In fact, we found that we could prepare ‘yellow’ fibrils identical in all chemical and microscopic characteristics to those found on the Shroud by treatment of the Spanish linen fibrils with concentrated H2SO4 for half an hour.”
Could a similar surficial oxidation of the linen have been obtained via gallotannic acids or other similar acids used in ancient ‘inks’, many of which contain iron compounds? Worth considering.
SUMMARY. If the reader accepts without data that the authors did what they said they did and found what they claimed they found, this paper can act to cast doubt on aspects of the McCrone hypothesis. At the same time, however, it then serves to undermine seriously other aspects of the Shroud of Turin. The flat-linen dilemma is further heightened in its importance while the so-called ‘bioplastic’ scenario is seriously undermined. One of the major defects in this paper is that it neither addressed nor attempted to repeat the standard tests for ‘blood’ made by either the Rizatti team or by McCrone, both of which were negative.
Kenneth M. Towe
>> Same as the bioplastic nonsense of Garza-Valdez.
>
> Which is why Gove, inventor of the C-14 process, agreed that
> it can contaminate the samples, and agreed it's there.
>
> You're making false claims there Ken and you're easily
> proven wrong on this one.
Garza-Valdes has referenced two abstracts on the subject. An abstract is, by definition, just a summary of a work. An abstract at the front of a scientific paper gives the reader an idea of what to expect from the paper that follows. Heller & Adler have an abstract at the front of their paper, but there are no data presented later to support what it says...only a repetition of what it says. An abstract that is published as part of a scientific meeting does the same thing...it gives the attendees an idea of what to expect from the speaker. However, this is usually followed by a complete publication that provides the evidence to support the brief summary. Apparently, "The DNA of God" is this publication, but it, too, provides no documentation for almost all of the assertions that are made.
The photo in G-V's book that is labeled "Leobacillus rubrus (400X) with Gram stain" is wrong. The magnification cannot be 400X if the size of the bacteria is that given on p. 127: "2 to 4 micrometers in length and 1 to 1.5 micrometers in diameter". At 400X objects that are 2-4 micrometers in length would be 0.8-0.1.6 millimeters in length on the photo. Clearly, these objects are much larger than that. Thus, either the magnification is wrong or the size of the bugs is wrong, or both.
What's wrong with the other photo? It lacks any magnification at all, but what is worrisome about it (as well as the SEM on the opposing page…also without magnification) is that there are NONE of these "millions of living microbiological organisms" to be seen. All these Leobacilli that were shown at 400X have disappeared? Rather strange.
Garza-Valdes describes his Leobacillus rubrus on pp. 127-128 in great detail. But, except for that one photo there is nothing to support what he says about them. He asserts that Leobacillus rubrus is a new genus and species of bacteria. One doesn't simply give a new name to a taxon without a formal publication somewhere. If he has published this "new taxa" [sic] formally for acceptance by the microbiological community, I have not seen the reference. Neither "Leobacillus" nor "rubrus" appears ANYWHERE in the catalog of the repository of the American Type Culture Collection. This repository is the largest and most diverse collection of microorganisms, cell lines, and molecular biology materials in the world." (from their web-site).
John P. Boatwright
>
> On 6/25/05 6:59 PM, in article 42BDE0...@For-God.net, "John P.
> Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that they were chemists and were
> > studying blood areas, proving that the blood is in fact,
> > blood, not paint, and was of the AB variety, which
> > of course, people of that area at that time, tended
> > to have.
> >
> > Rogers also did testing to disprove the "paint theory"
> > of McCrone. Why did you not mention his disproving such
> > too?
> >
> > Ken, you seem to be spewing out falsehoods in this
> > post, or very nearly such.
> >
> >> Unlike McCrone's papers,
> >> there is not a single photo, figure, graph, or chart...nothing at
> all but
> >> bold-faced assertions....designed specifically to counter McCrone!
> >
> > Data is data. How you present it, text, graphs, photos,
> > figures, etc... that's up to the writers of the published article.
>
> Sorry, John, data are, indeed, data, BUT mere words on a page are NOT
> data! No qualified scientist will accept a conclusion without some
> supporting DATA. McCrone provided extensive DATA.
McCrone was throughly debunked. His claim of "it's a painting"
is a laughable discussion topic, Ken.
It's not a painting.
The number of PHd's saying it's not a painting verses
McCrone saying the opposite... it's ridiculous.
A painting would have PAINT coating the fibers, front and
back of them, the fibers IMMERSED in paint. Where's the paint?
McCrone was off his rocker.
> Except for an
> itemization of the samples, Heller & Adler provided NONE...ZIP! Below
> is an extensive critique of the Heller & Adler paper. Note that they
> provide no support either for the Garza-Valdes nonsense.
Ken, Dr. Alan D. Adler was a professor emeritus of chemistry
at Western Connecticut State University. He was not some
joe blow writing trash papers... as you're seeming to "paint"
(pun intended) him to be.
Anyway, Adler found that the blood on the shroud was type AB,
and not "paint", as McCrone was claiming.
As for data, here is a paper from Adler where he showed photos,
data and gave references for the seam along the edge of the
shroud, where he's pointing out that they probably had to
reweave the cloth due to tearing prior to the seam they had
to add in so they could hang the thing:
http://www.shroud.com/adler2.htm
Adler had published a number of peer reviewed papers in the
past, so your claim of "incompetence" is lame. I think you
try to make the claim to balance out McCrone's wack theory
of "the shroud is a painting!".
> Heller & Adler used ?sticky-tapes? taken from the Shroud. Thirty-six
> ?sticky-tape? samples had been taken by Dr. Ray Rogers. These tapes
> were given to Walter McCrone, who divided them in half and affixed
> them to glass microscope slides. Rogers gave 22 of his half of the 36
> samples to Heller & Adler for their work. The remaining half of the
> samples were retained by McCrone. H & A tabulate a description of the
> 22 samples and their identification codes.
See the data?
No?
22 samples, with identification codes, were described.
That's data.
> Using the standard Becke line test for
> comparing indices of refraction, H & A noted that non-birefringent
> fibrils behaved differently from birefringent fibrils when immersed in
> benzene (IR = 1.50).
Looks like more data...
> This characterization may have been true, but in
> the absence of photo documentation the interpretation thereof is
> incorrect.
See?
When DOUBT is your guide, ANYTHING can be tossed out, just
by saying "it's not so".
> Heller & Adler found iron on all parts of the Shroud tested. The
> uncoated, non-image fibrils ?...all give relatively strong positive
> tests only for Ca and Fe...?
IIRC, that's due to the linen retting process.
> H & A provide the reader with a disconcerting number of contradictory
> statements...
>
> They state (p. 91, 93, 97) that the predominant form for iron was
> found to be some type of cellulosic bound iron on the fibril surface,
> found more or less uniformly over the whole Shroud.
Probably from retting.
> But, they also say
> that the ?birefringent red coated fibrils give the strongest [iron]
> test of all? (p. 91). They then say that ?...the [linen] fibrils
> themselves contain more iron than the isolated blood particulates.?
> These statements are also at odds with their statements on page 97:
> ?iron...was enhanced in the blood image areas..? and ?...the X-ray
> study (ref. 15) showed a uniform concentration of the iron in the
> image and non-image areas, but enhancement in the areas of blood
> marks.? No photos to support these statements were included.
Not everything in the world is paint, Ken.
Blood has iron in it. It's part of how God made it possible to
have oxygen transport in the blood.
> SUMMARY. If the reader accepts without data that the authors did what
> they said they did and found what they claimed they found, this paper
> can act to cast doubt on aspects of the McCrone hypothesis.
They gave data, the verbal descriptions of the tests done
and what the results were.
> At the
> same time, however, it then serves to undermine seriously other
> aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Not when you realize they used iron combs to ret the linen.
> The flat-linen dilemma is further
> heightened in its importance while the so-called ?bioplastic? scenario
> is seriously undermined. One of the major defects in this paper is
> that it neither addressed nor attempted to repeat the standard tests
> for ?blood? made by either the Rizatti team or by McCrone, both of
> which were negative.
It's old blood, Ken. Adler and Heller proved it was AB blood
on the cloth, not paint.
McCrone's claims imploded when he claimed the shroud was a
painting. From what I've seen, nearly every PHd that's examined
it, has said it's not a painting. Paint would cover the entire
fiber, front and back, but the image forming portion is only on
the topmost portion of the fibers... hence not a painting.
John P. Boatwright
>
> On 6/25/05 6:59 PM, in article 42BDE0...@For-God.net, "John P.
> Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>
> >> Same as the bioplastic nonsense of Garza-Valdez.
> >
> > Which is why Gove, inventor of the C-14 process, agreed that
> > it can contaminate the samples, and agreed it's there.
> >
> > You're making false claims there Ken and you're easily
> > proven wrong on this one.
>
> Not so easily, John. Actually, it's the other way around (irrespective
> of what Dr. Gove said...he has no expertise in biology). Consider
> this...
Uhm... the University of Texas showed photos of the fibers
with the contamination on them.
> The photo in G-V's book that is labeled "Leobacillus rubrus (400X)
> with Gram stain" is wrong. The magnification cannot be 400X if the
> size of the bacteria is that given on p. 127: "2 to 4 micrometers in
> length and 1 to 1.5 micrometers in diameter". At 400X objects that are
> 2-4 micrometers in length would be 0.8-0.1.6 millimeters in length on
> the photo. Clearly, these objects are much larger than that. Thus,
> either the magnification is wrong or the size of the bugs is wrong, or
> both.
Typos in a book happen all the time.
> What's wrong with the other photo? It lacks any magnification at all,
> but what is worrisome about it (as well as the SEM on the opposing
> page?also without magnification) is that there are NONE of these
> "millions of living microbiological organisms" to be seen. All these
> Leobacilli that were shown at 400X have disappeared? Rather strange.
You do know that bacteria can produce plastics, right Ken?
And when they die...
> Garza-Valdes describes his Leobacillus rubrus on pp. 127-128 in great
> detail. But, except for that one photo there is nothing to support
> what he says about them. He asserts that Leobacillus rubrus is a new
> genus and species of bacteria. One doesn't simply give a new name to a
> taxon without a formal publication somewhere. If he has published this
> "new taxa" [sic] formally for acceptance by the microbiological
> community, I have not seen the reference. Neither "Leobacillus" nor
> "rubrus" appears ANYWHERE in the catalog of the repository of the
> American Type Culture Collection. This repository is the largest and
> most diverse collection of microorganisms, cell lines, and molecular
> biology materials in the world." (from their web-site).
Looks like he created the name by:
* Leo - lion ?
* bacillius - rod shaped bactera
* rubrus - red in color
I suppose he had to call it something.
They are able to get bacteria to form bioplastic, so it's
not anything new other than someone realizing the shroud
could be coated in such over the couple thousand years it
built up.
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
biophotonic effect upon the Shroud's linen because photons didn't have
enough energy, not according to accepted peer-review that is. What is
interesting is that Ken used to also reject my claims otherwise and would
ask whether I was published in this claim? Well Ken, the answer is "Yes".
The Shroud Can be the result of biophotonic reactions. see physics essays
next September; a copy of this paper and others can be found at
www.unifiedphysics.com
<tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:42d11...@news.iprimus.com.au...
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
<tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:42da4870$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Kenneth M. Towe
"tfle...@hotkey.net.au" <tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote:
> Ken if this appears "in your face", it's because it is!! LOL
>
> <tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
> news:42da4870$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> In regard to the Shroud Ken Towe used to say that there could be no
>> biophotonic effect upon the Shroud's linen because photons didn't have
>> enough energy, not according to accepted peer-review that is. What is
>> interesting is that Ken used to also reject my claims otherwise and would
>> ask whether I was published in this claim? Well Ken, the answer is "Yes".
>> The Shroud Can be the result of biophotonic reactions. see physics essays
>> next September; a copy of this paper and others can be found at
>> www.unifiedphysics.com
The evidence at the time (AT THE TIME, Tony!) was totally inconsistent with
your THEORY. You presented no evidence in support of your whaky idea.
Now, if you have some new facts and new evidence, OK...let's see it!
Can't wait to see some linen with images on it from biophotons!
Kenneth M. Towe
science is done! You obviously haven't a clue! You don't know the meaning of
scientific DATA. Your remarks here are quite comical and reveal that you
simply had a knee-jerk reaction! You don't know what data are! A simple
tabulation of the samples is not data supporting what the samples show. The
index of refraction of benzene (which is taken from a book anyhow) is
meaningless without a photo of the materials in the benzene. Hellar and
Adler provided no photos...not even one! Don't really know how this paper
passed peer review!
AB blood?
Have you ever heard of the Rizatti tests for blood on the Shroud?
Commissioned by the Vatican. Used the standard tests for blood. Result? No
blood! McCrone used similar tests...no blood! He published color
photos...that's DATA! Only Adler claimed (he published no evidence to
support it) to have found blood. His tests were not even the standard tests
used by practicing forensic scientists. How do you know it is AB blood?
Because he said so? Two others said the opposite!
On 7/16/05 11:47 AM, in article 42D92A...@For-God.net, "John P.
Kenneth M. Towe
let's accept the crazy bioplastic theory and let's accept that Garza-Valdez
found a whole new genus and species of bacteria and never published on this
amazing finding, and let's accept that the photos show globs of this
bioplastic stuff all over the fibers.
Question 1: Why didn't Heller and Adler see any of it? They missed this?
Amazing!
Question 2: If this bioplastic explains the C-14 date how does that fit with
the theory proposed by Rogers? Can't have it both ways, John!
On 7/16/05 1:31 PM, in article 42D943...@For-God.net, "John P.
Kenneth M. Towe
>
> <tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
> news:42da4870$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> In regard to the Shroud Ken Towe used to say that there could be no
>> biophotonic effect upon the Shroud's linen because photons didn't have
>> enough energy, not according to accepted peer-review that is. What is
>> interesting is that Ken used to also reject my claims otherwise and would
>> ask whether I was published in this claim? Well Ken, the answer is "Yes".
>> The Shroud Can be the result of biophotonic reactions. see physics essays
>> next September; a copy of this paper and others can be found at
>> www.unifiedphysics.com
[Edited from an internet site....]
Biophoton
[Categories: Pseudoscience]
Biophoton is a term used by some to denote those (A quantum of electromagnetic radiation; an elementary particle that is its own antiparticle) photons that are emitted by biological probes as part of the general weak electromagnetic radiation of living biological cells. Further terms in science for this phenomenon are ultra-weak bioluminescence, dark luminescence, ultra-weak chemiluminescence.
A typical magnitude of the effect is 100 photons in the visible range of wavelengths per 1 cm¾ of probe surface in 1 second. This is much less than in the openly visible and well-researched phenomenon of normal (Luminescence produced by physiological processes (as in the firefly)) bioluminescence, but much more than in the thermal, or body radiation, emitted by every matter.
This amount of light is comparable to that observed from a candle viewed at a distance of 10 kilometers. The detection of these photons was only possible after the development of sensitive photomultipliers in the 1950s through 1970s.
Whereas the existence of this radiation has no longer been disputed after the 1970s, its interpretation is still very much an open question.
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
all get NOWHERE, so thank you for acting as agent provocateur over the past
few years. it always takes two to tangle huh?
kind regards Tony
"Kenneth M. Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:BF007E1F.A402%ken....@alumni.duke.edu...
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
as a medieval fake!! and they appear to have been wrong too!!
"Kenneth M. Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:BF007E1F.A402%ken....@alumni.duke.edu...
Kenneth M. Towe
"tfle...@hotkey.net.au" <tfle...@hotkey.net.au> wrote:
> and "at that time" ken it looked like the experts had condemned the Shroud
> as a medieval fake!! and they appear to have been wrong too!!
Nonsense! The Shroud IS a fake! Too many problems with it that have not
been addressed in a convincing way, or when they have been, they contradict
one another.
BTW...Is the definition of BIOPHOTON that I sent in another message now
incorrect? Is it still an ultra-weak source?
tfle...@hotkey.net.au
can in fact be identical to 'normal' photons found in inanimate objects such
as a rock. this distinction as to whether it is an "ultra-weak" form of
energy belongs to an older somewhat dated form of physics. in fact
biophoton is a terminology used mainly by popp as below
F.A. Popp, About the coherence of biophotons, Microscopic Quantum Coherence,
Proceedings of an International Conference, (World Scientific, River Edge,
NJ,1999)
the main feature of 'biophotons' are that the body is rife with them; our
organs, tissues, cells, dna, neurones, proteins, etc (you get the idea) use
biophotons to inter-, intra-, and cross-communicate as needed; the chinese
have known about acupunture for thousands of years; we in the west are just
realising what they have been on about!! biophotons no less. yet the
chinese have not known about biofields only about the tiny biocurrents they
measure with metallic needles-this is related to the flow of these currents
through the fingers and toes, and hence we see the distortions on the
shroud; of course this knowledge about biofields was NOT known in the west
until recently after we started to do numerical models of humans under
high-voltage transmission lines and near other sources of radiated energy.
it is THIS reason taht the shroud is NOT a fake as you espouse, becuase this
knowledge of the biofields has only recently been realised!!
"Kenneth M. Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:BF0AA5AF.A448%ken....@alumni.duke.edu...
John P. Boatwright
>
> John...Sorry to be blunt but you have no understanding whatsoever of how
> science is done! You obviously haven't a clue! You don't know the meaning of
> scientific DATA.
Us grocery store clerks know all about DATA.
> Your remarks here are quite comical and reveal that you
> simply had a knee-jerk reaction!
Knees are fine, Towe.
> You don't know what data are! A simple
> tabulation of the samples is not data supporting what the samples show. The
> index of refraction of benzene (which is taken from a book anyhow) is
> meaningless without a photo of the materials in the benzene. Hellar and
> Adler provided no photos...not even one! Don't really know how this paper
> passed peer review!
I've seen peer review articles without any photos.
Your claim is bogus.
> AB blood?
> Have you ever heard of the Rizatti tests for blood on the Shroud?
> Commissioned by the Vatican. Used the standard tests for blood. Result? No
> blood!
Wrong.
Dr. Adler and Dr. Heller both confirmed the blood.
> McCrone used similar tests...no blood! He published color
> photos...that's DATA! Only Adler claimed (he published no evidence to
> support it) to have found blood. His tests were not even the standard tests
> used by practicing forensic scientists. How do you know it is AB blood?
> Because he said so? Two others said the opposite!
Towe, it's well known that blood was proven to be
on the shroud. They even showed that when the blood
was removed, the cloth underneth, was not discolored
like the area outside the blood.
As for blood being on cloth... that's what, pretty
darn easy to find some blood and forge blood being
on a cloth, so why you're claiming "it's not blood"
when it's already been proven to be blood, and blood
is so easy to apply to cloth... who knows... your
doubt is pretty stiff I guess.
John P. Boatwright
>
> Again, John, you are displaying your ignorance of how science is done!
Towe, us grocery store clerks know all about how science is done.
> But,
> let's accept the crazy bioplastic theory and let's accept that Garza-Valdez
> found a whole new genus and species of bacteria and never published on this
> amazing finding, and let's accept that the photos show globs of this
> bioplastic stuff all over the fibers.
You forgot about the Univerity of Texas showing photos of it.
> Question 1: Why didn't Heller and Adler see any of it? They missed this?
> Amazing!
Bioplastics are not anything new, Towe.
Do you need articles discussing such, not written by Garza-Valdez?
> Question 2: If this bioplastic explains the C-14 date how does that fit with
> the theory proposed by Rogers? Can't have it both ways, John!
It's a very old cloth, Ken. There are a number of items
in play, all contribute.
Even Rogers said the core area of the cloth, is very old.