© Stephen E. Jones[1]
[Previous: August 2016, part #1] [Next: September 2016, part #2]
This is my "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the September 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related September 2016 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.
Contents:
Editorial.
"The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics," Northwest Creation Network, September 7th, 2016.
"Pope Francis: Christians Must Believe 'Jesus' Bodily Resurrection Was Real' or Faith Is Empty," The Christian Post, September 19, 2016.
"Shroud of Turin remains a mystery," The Citizen, September 27, 2016.
"Photo Diary: Shroud of Turin Museum, Alamogordo NM," September 28, 2016.
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in September up to issue #58, April 1990 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are now up to issue #57, February 1990.
Topic index: In September I realised that my new topics series is also too time-consuming, so I have abandoned it to make time for more important posts. Much as I like the idea of a topic index, there will be no more topic indexes of my blog, ever!
Posts: In September I blogged only 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10"; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Third century"; "No style #16: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"; "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started;" and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2016"
Comments: In September I deleted as substandard an anonymous comment that was just a bare assertion, with no supporting evidence, which I will do every time. I deleted as substandard another comment that seemingly agreed with me, but was a `too clever by half' trap that I was aware of from my more than a decade (1994-2005) of debating atheist/agnostics on Creation/Evolution forums.
My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I blogged two posts about my hacker theory in September. The first, "How my radiocarbon dating hacker theory started," I discovered was more complex that I originally thought. I am now thinking of including it in the final part #11 of my current hacker series. Part III of Joe Marino's, "The Politics of Radiocarbon Dating," with its promised paragraph about my "hypothesis that the labs results were the result of a computer hacking," and a link to the start of my current hacker series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking," does not appear to have been posted in Shroud.com's September update as expected (or anywhere).
Late news: As Joe Marino later emailed me, "It was mentioned in the "Recently Published Papers and Articles" of Shroud.com's September Update:
"The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud - Part III by Joseph G. Marino. This is the third and final part of a 3-part article published by Joe Marino on his website on September 19, 2016."I will in a separate post report what that Part III says about my hacker theory.
Pageviews: At midnight on 30 September, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 593,586 and "Pageviews last month" as 9,279. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, August 2016, Sep 1, 2016 - 84; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 72; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Third century," Sep 13, 2016 - 72; "No style #16: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!, Sep 5, 2016 - 69; and "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)." - 66.
Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
Posted: 3 October 2016. Updated: 22 September 2017.
I deleted Kyle's comment because it sought to discuss matters which were on permanently banned commenter Colin Berry's blog.
ReplyDeleteAs that would be a way to circumvent my permanent ban on Colin commenting on my blog, comments on my blog of matters on Colin's blog are permanently off-topic.
Here is my edited version of Kyle's comment and my reply:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jones,
[...]
Also, since I am already posting, what are your thoughts on the traffic to your site from China? I would not have guessed it to be your second highest source of viewers.
Thanks,
Kyle
October 4, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Blogger Stephen E. Jones said...
Kyle
[...]
>Also, since I am already posting, what are your thoughts on the traffic to your site from China? I would not have guessed it to be your second highest source of viewers.
Thanks. I hadn't realised that the latest Google Analytics map shows China as the second highest source of viewers of my blog!
My thoughts on that are the same as my August "Editorial and Comments" that "most of my readers are [in August] in the Russian Federation, which is particularly gratifying to me that I can provide information about the Shroud to people who might otherwise have difficulty finding that information."
Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.