Principia

IEEE magazines and Applied Optics, hahaha. OK sure, why not.

But notice that most of those articles in leonard(e)'s little list pre-date the 1989 Nature C-14 article. So there were a lot of speculations and wishful thinking before then -- things of the "is it blood?" or "does it look like Jesus?" nature. But as is typical in scientific circles, the best study is one that puts all those hemming and hawings to rest -- weill at least for the reasonable open-minded folks .

leonarde

Partial post:What exactly do you mean by THAT???!?!?!?!?

Cheers!

Principia

Well, for instance, let's take you, leonard(e). It is quite clear to us that you are neither a forensic analyst or a serologist.

So... Tell us what your expert opinion is on the immunological specificty to albumin and how it applies to Adler and Heller's tests (esp. to points 8, 9, 10, and 11).

leonarde

Partial post:What the heck are you talking about? Do you know something about Applied Optics that I don't?

That's not all people notice: they notice that you've switched from talking about the blood to talking about C-14 testing. Not terribly smoothly done either!

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post:Talk about strawman arguments! You've constructed a strawman army here: nowhere do I claim expertise on these tests but the people chosen for STURP (including but not limited to McCrone) were chosen for their scientific expertise. It was their conflicting finding on the blood (ie the conflict with McCrone's finding) which led them to take test after test after test. It is all in Heller's book.

Cheers!

Principia

Nope, I am talking about the preponderance of evidence -- once again, explicitly stated a couple of posts above.

Adler and Heller may have done the tests, and published in some journals -- but science didn't stop with what you think were "definitive" studies. They failed to account for proper controls, and people found out about them. Plus, the C-14 test made it quite moot whether or not there was in fact blood -- as Emerson pointed out above.

Though, if it ain't blood, it only makes the case stronger.

Principia

And you're evading the issue -- being quite the slippery fella.

Of course it's all in Heller's book. The point is that you, as an admitted non-expert, bought the studies whole -- just like Heller did. At least Heller went on to do additional tests. What have you done? Posted them on several internet fora? What else?

The point here is whether or not you ought to believe the conclusions. At least the evidence exists that these studies are inconclusive. So are you telling us that your only reason not to investigate these negative evidence is because ... they're not in Heller's book?

leonarde

Since one of my interlocutors expressed both interest in the C-14 test and scepticism about Dr Adler's qualifications, here is Adler talking about the C-14 test:Above from:
http://www.shroud.com/bsts4410.htm

Principia

OK. I've been down this road before.

Leonard(e) is obviously in no business to be judging scientific works on their own merits. So what he's going to do is spam us with a bunch of quotes from the www.shroud.com site (which, as I alluded earlier, isn't necessarily the best compilation of open-minded investigators). I'll wait until leonard(e) gets tired of cutting and pasting.

leonarde

Partial post:Well the preponderance of the evidence is what prompted STURP,
the most comprehensive scientifically oriented body to study the Shroud in the last century or so to find that what is known about the Shroud (saving only the later C-14 test) is compatible with authenticity.

Cheers!