tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post5649609390707567150..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #10Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-65894027811415995052016-10-01T14:25:55.927+08:002016-10-01T14:25:55.927+08:00This is my reply to a comment under a 2013 post. I...This is my reply to a comment under a <a href="https://goo.gl/vlF19w" rel="nofollow">2013 post</a>. I am going to do this from now on, as fewer readers will see my replies under my old posts.<br /><br />Kyle<br /><br />>Hello again. Forgive me for posting on an old post of yours, but I am new to this and have been going through them. <br /><br />You are free to post under an old post, as long as the comment is relevant to topics in that post. But the problem is that few will read that comment and my reply to it.<br /><br />My policies (see above) allow for comments on "any Shroud-related topic" to be posted "under my latest post ... without being off-topic." So as explained above, I am replying under this my "latest post."<br /><br />>Can you please explain to me what "Ibid" is in your sourcing? I apologize if this is explained elsewhere or if I am having a momentary lapse in judgement.<br /><br />"<i>Ibid</i>" is a standard literary term which is an abbreviation of the Latin "<i>ibidem</i>, meaning `in the same place'":<br /><br />"<i>Ibid</i>. (Latin, short for <i>ibidem</i>, meaning `in the same place') is the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the preceding endnote or footnote ... To find the <i>ibid</i>. source, one must look at the reference preceding it." ("<i><a href="https://goo.gl/3oHp7M" rel="nofollow">Ibid</a></i>.," Wikipedia, 19 August 2016)<br /><br />For example, in my post above (i.e. the 2013 post):<br /><br />"NOTES<br />1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.22-23. [return]<br />2. Wilson, 1979, p.23. [return]<br />3. Ibid. [return]<br />4. Ibid. [return]"<br /><br />"3. Ibid." and "4. Ibid." is shorthand for the immediately previous "2. Wilson, 1979, p.23."<br /><br />>Specifically, I am interested to see the data on the AB blood type being common among Jewish people.<br /><br />The Shroud pro-authenticist claim is not that "the AB blood type" is "common among Jewish people" today. The claim is that the AB blood type is MORE common in Jews than in non-Jews today:<br /><br />"... early European races are characterized by a very low type B frequency, and a relatively high type A frequency while the Asiatic races are characterized by a high frequency of types A and B." ("<a href="https://goo.gl/ChSdXK" rel="nofollow">Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types</a>," BloodBook.com, 7 April 2013).<br /><br />See the table in that article, where "Jews (Germany)" and "Jews (Poland)" have a higher proportion of blood group AB than "English," "Dutch" and "French".<br /><br />And therefore, as Jews have been interbreeding with European non-Jews in the ~2,000 years since Jesus' time (especially after the <a href="https://goo.gl/Qbu0vI" rel="nofollow">destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 when surviving Jews were enslaved to European non-Jewish owners</a>), the AB blood type would have been even more common in Jews back then.<br /><br />Therefore, that the blood type of both the Shroud and the <a href="https://goo.gl/xQvY8S" rel="nofollow">Sudarium of Oviedo</a> is AB [see my posts: [<a href="https://goo.gl/tcFzHg" rel="nofollow">18Mar11</a>] and [<a href="https://goo.gl/LpIk6q" rel="nofollow">07Feb12</a>] is further evidence that: 1) the man on the Shroud was Jewish; 2) the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo covered the same Jewish man's body; and 3) that Jewish man was Jesus.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-36215819519034887562016-09-20T18:46:14.495+08:002016-09-20T18:46:14.495+08:00Anonymous
>If there actually was computer hack...Anonymous<br /><br />>If there actually was computer hacking , <br /><br />That is what the <i>evidence</i> points to. If you are a truth-seeker in this matter, then read <i>all</i> my posts in this series, <i>carefully</i>. <br /><br />>why was it necessarily Linick ? <br /><br />I don't claim that it was <i>necessarily</i> Linick.<br /><br />But the <i>evidence</i> points to it being Linick. Read my post, #6, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/the-1260-1390-radiocarbon-date-of-turin.html" rel="nofollow">Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the primary hacker</a>"<br /><br />>Anyone involved in the testing could have done it actually.<br /><br /><i>Could</i> "anyone" other than Linick have hacked the Shroud's radiocarbon dating? <br /><br /><i>Would</i> "anyone" other than Linick have hacked the Shroud's radiocarbon dating? <br /><br /><i>Did</i> "anyone" other than Linick hack the Shroud's radiocarbon dating? <br /><br />You are welcome to propose your theory (but not on this blog) that "<i>Anyone</i> involved in the testing" could have hacked the Shroud's radiocarbon dating.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />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.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-24067224843772861872016-09-20T17:07:54.287+08:002016-09-20T17:07:54.287+08:00If there actually was computer hacking , why was i...If there actually was computer hacking , why was it necessarily Linick ? Anyone involved in the testing could have done it actually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com