tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post6213592173854052799..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: "Ga-Gm": Turin Shroud Dictionary Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-20609794038650612422015-07-06T21:50:54.100+08:002015-07-06T21:50:54.100+08:00>So, apart from the fact that the term "co...>So, apart from the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" says NOTHING about whether a theory is TRUE or not, and indeed "the skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day SUPERSTITION" (!):<br />><br />"Conspiracy theory ... A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.... However, some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that ... Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate." ("Conspiracy theory," Wikipedia, 30 May 2015)<br /><br />I have just realised that I had not cited that part of the Wikipedia quote which referred to "skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day SUPERSTITION."<br /><br />Here is what the quote should have been: <br /><br />"Conspiracy theory ... A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.... However, some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that ... Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate. ... [and] some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that the skepticism of conspiracy theorising (the generation of conspiracy theories) is akin to a modern day superstition" ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7bu9pnj" rel="nofollow">Conspiracy theory</a>," Wikipedia, 6 July 2015)<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-91463060396811843622015-06-01T09:03:02.380+08:002015-06-01T09:03:02.380+08:00>I have large photo of the Man on the Shroud (w...>I have large photo of the Man on the Shroud (whom the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY indicates is Jesus) and I post ONLY for His approval.<br /><br />That should have been: "I have photo of the face of Man on the Shroud (whom the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY indicates is Jesus) on the wall overlooking my computer where I write my blogs, and I post ONLY for His approval."<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53941102623740284972015-05-31T23:25:58.469+08:002015-05-31T23:25:58.469+08:00[continued]
It is early days yet for my theory th...[continued]<br /><br />It is early days yet for <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mwqs3yq" rel="nofollow">my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker</a>, allegedly Timothy W. Linick (aided by Karl Koch). It explains, BETTER THAN ANY OTHER THEORY, how the 1st century Shroud had a 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date. I am therefore quietly confident that it will gradually become accepted by most Shroud pro-authenticists. <br /><br />And quite frankly I DON'T CARE what you and your non- / anti-authenticist ilk think of my theory, or me. I don't read you blog, or its comments, and I haven't done since 8 May 2014 (over a year). I have large photo of the Man on the Shroud (whom the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY indicates is Jesus) and I post ONLY for His approval. And He has graciously given me "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ld5cq3a" rel="nofollow">Php 4:7</a>) in my posts, including in my hacker theory.<br /><br />If my theory is eventually accepted by most Shroud pro-authenticists (as I expect it will), you and your non- / anti-authenticist ilk will have `egg on your [collective] face'.<br /><br />But even if my theory is not ever accepted by most (or even any) Shroud pro-authenticists, and even if it is proven to be false, I will not feel any sense of failure or shame. With apologies to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ojkgse5" rel="nofollow">Alfred, Lord Tennyson</a>, in science:<br /><br />'Tis better to have theorised and been proven wrong<br />Than never to have theorised at all."<br /><br />In science, many, if not most, theories turn out to be false, but the scientists who proposed those failed theories are respected for at least having the courage of their convictions.<br /><br />What is NOT respected in science are those who "are not EVEN wrong":<br /><br />"Not even wrong ... The phrase `not even wrong' describes any argument that purports to be scientific but ... cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected) ... The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking ... `a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'. ... The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/236hyt" rel="nofollow"> Not even wrong</a>," Wikipedia, 26 February 2015).<br /><br />Your sitting-on-the-fence position:<br /><br />"Is the Shroud real? PROBABLY. The Shroud of Turin MAY be the real burial cloth of Jesus"<br /><br />is a prime example of "not EVEN wrong." You can't be proven wrong and from that "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/pylbtbs" rel="nofollow">COWARD'S CASTLE</a>" position you can attack me and anyone else who at least has the COURAGE of their convictions.<br /><br />>Dan Porter<br /><br />Since, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/oewznql" rel="nofollow">as previously advised</a>:<br /><br />"... mentioning of Dan Porter, and his blog, and his blog's members in connection with Porter's blog, is henceforth off-topic on my blog" and "this includes you, or your members, making comments on my blog for the purpose of providing `grist for the mill' of your blog," this has been your last comment under this post.<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 without being off-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-1010292564722491172015-05-31T23:01:13.758+08:002015-05-31T23:01:13.758+08:00[continued]
Yet a Google search on "Stephen ...[continued]<br /><br />Yet a Google search on "Stephen Jones Shroud Turin conspiracy theory" (without the quotes) reveals that you are still referring to my theory as a "Conspiracy Theory":<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/pvbnpya" rel="nofollow">I Tried to Ignore the Carbon Dating Computer Hacking ...</a> shroudstory.com › CONSPIRACY THEORY<br />May 18, 2015 - A reader from Hampton, Virginia writes: I was reading Stephen Jones's latest blogging on the ... I've pretty much given up discussing his CONSPIRACY THEORY that the .... <br />----------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Since you MUST be aware of my above disclaimers that my theory does not, at its most basic, depend on Linick conspiring with anyone, your continuing to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," shows that you are DISHONEST in this matter.<br /><br />>... or it is extremely sloppy work<br /><br />It is neither "dishonest" nor is it "extremely sloppy work" (see below). Only your PREJUDICE against me causes you to see it as such.<br /><br />>to directly link to Ian Wilson's book in a sentence that reads, "Note the further evidence that Arizona's first `1350 AD' radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick”<br /><br />The link to Wilson's book is only on the words "Arizona's first `1350 AD' radiocarbon date of the Shroud." The words, "was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick," have their own separate links.<br /><br />I stated in the first, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kctvnvk" rel="nofollow">Main index A-Z</a>," page of my <i>Turin Shroud Dictionary</i> that, in the interests of speed of posting (and therefore more posts) that I would not reference most of my points but rely on hyperlinks to where a particular point is mentioned:<br /><br />"As with most dictionaries there won't normally be references to elements within entries but where possible there will be hyperlinks (including to other entries in this dictionary) supporting them."<br /><br />And each subsequent page of my <i>Turin Shroud Dictionary</i>, including the above page "Ga-Gm" has, "For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A."<br /><br />>Someone might mistakenly think that Ian agrees with your hacking theory.<br /><br />As you state, that would be "mistakenly" for someone to think that from the words "Arizona's first `1350 AD' radiocarbon date of the Shroud" hyperlinked to the page in Wilson's 2010 book "The Shroud" where he mentions "The first of the laboratories to achieve a result was Arizona ... the carbon dating having reportedly found the Shroud to date from 1350".<br /><br />"The first of the laboratories to achieve a result was Arizona at the beginning of June, followed by Zurich in July, then Oxford on 8 August. Their findings were supposed to be kept secret, but before the end of August London's Evening Standard was on the streets with the banner headline 'Turin Shroud is a Fake', the carbon dating having reportedly found the Shroud to date from 1350." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.89 or p.128 in the 2011 compact edition)<br /><br />that I am stating or implying that Ian Wilson agrees with my hacking theory.<br /><br />But if by "mistakenly think that Ian [Wilson] agrees with your hacking theory" you mean that Wilson does NOT agree with my hacking theory, then how do you (or your hypothetical "Someone") KNOW that he doesn't?<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-43769146913066335222015-05-31T22:47:25.518+08:002015-05-31T22:47:25.518+08:00Dan
>As I indicate on my blog, "It seems ...Dan<br /><br />>As I indicate on my blog, "It seems a bit dishonest ....<br /><br />On the topic of "dishonest," if you are a Christian, you should obey Jesus' command to "first take the log out of your own eye" before you presume "to take the speck out of" my eye:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/ok3ouzv" rel="nofollow">Mt 7:3-5</a> "3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.<br /><br />I have repeatedly stated, the most recently being, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ncpvapw" rel="nofollow">My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (9)</a>" of 17 May 2015, " Koch is not essential to my theory" and that Linick could have acted alone:<br /><br />"First, as I have previously stated, Karl Koch is <i>not essential</i> to my theory: `... Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. ..." <br /><br />"...Karl Koch is not essential to my theory, as LINICK COULD HAVE HACKED ZURICH AND OXFORD'S AMS COMPUTER SOME OTHER WAY, E.G. BY ISSUING THEM WITH A PROGRAM `UPDATE', or one of the KGB's own operatives could have entered those two laboratories clandestinely and installed Linick's program on their AMS control console computers" (my emphasis).<br /><br />"If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in installing Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS control console computers, then my theory would not be falsified. In that case I would have to maintain that Linick's program was installed on those laboratories' computers by some other way. For example, LINICK HIMSELF COULD HAVE FLOWN OVER TO ZURICH AND OXFORD, INSTALLED HIS PROGRAM CLANDESTINELY ON THEIR COMPUTERS, AND RETURNED TO ARIZONA, IN A FEW DAYS. ..." (my emphasis).<br /><br />So, apart from the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" says NOTHING about whether a theory is TRUE or not, and indeed "the skepticism of conspiracy theorising ... is akin to a modern day SUPERSTITION" (!):<br /><br />"Conspiracy theory ... A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.... However, some thinkers, particularly philosophers, have argued that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational and that ... Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dmjm6" rel="nofollow">Conspiracy theory</a>," Wikipedia, 30 May 2015)<br /><br />my hacking theory, at its most basic, does not require "two or more persons, a group, or an organization," as Linick COULD have acted alone.<br /><br />I concluded with:<br /><br />"So those who continue to dismiss my theory as merely a "conspiracy theory," in the full knowledge of my above disclaimers, do so <i>dishonestly</i>."<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-36726613934868694402015-05-31T16:38:18.665+08:002015-05-31T16:38:18.665+08:00As I indicate on my blog, "It seems a bit dis...As I indicate on my blog, "It seems a bit dishonest or it is extremely sloppy work to directly link to Ian Wilson’s book in a sentence that reads, “Note the further evidence that Arizona’s first "1350 AD" radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a fraud, perpetrated by a computer hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick”<br /><br />Someone might mistakenly think that Ian agrees with your hacking theory. <br /><br />Dan PorterUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15165885924185456923noreply@blogger.com