• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

Thanks, mine was a hardcover book that even gave the recipe they used for the light sensitive reaction.
I honestly can't recall the author but I donated it to a then local library.

As I recall, egg whites lemon juice and long exposure to sunlight. Some other stuff I can't recall.
 
Surely how the image was made / whether the pose is physically possible &c is irrelevant, when the cloth it is on has been proven to be centuries too young to be what it is claimed to be?


ETA: on reflection, how it was made is interesting. Still a fake, though.
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Surely how the image was made / whether the pose is physically possible &c is irrelevant, when the cloth it is on has been proven to be centuries too young to be what it is claimed to be?
Click to expand...
The usual response to that is that the part that was tested (only one very tiny part was ever permitted to be tested) was a later repair, not part of the original cloth.
 
arthwollipot said:
The usual response to that is that the part that was tested (only one very tiny part was ever permitted to be tested) was a later repair, not part of the original cloth.
Click to expand...
A "fact" which seems to have escaped the two textile experts present at the sampling, and an issue not raised by the Archbishop of Turin, who might have had a vested interest in avoiding areas that might not be original material. Plus, the authenticists generally accept the validity of the 1973 studies which sampled the same area of the cloth.
 
theprestige said:
Stage magic has entered the chat.

Anyway, even if we're to be agnostic about the matter of fakery, I think we can be fairly certain it's a hoax. Which is to say, even if the markings on the shroud were made by natural means, it cannot possibly have been a Roman-era Judean burial shroud. It's simply not old enough. Those who promulgated the myth in medieval times may or may not have been perpetrating a hoax. Those who promulgate the myth in modern times are certainly perpetrating a hoax.
Click to expand...

Fairly certain, I can agree to that, but that leaves a window for evidence to show it is of the Roman era.

Here are the dates from wiki, one standard deviation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
  • Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
  • Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
  • Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
The dates don't overlap, but the dates on the control samples including the one from the other Queen Cleopatra does overlap.

I am confident in the dates produced by the labs, I just think there is something up with the shroud sample, in other words since the three samples dates do not overlap, that means the three samples are not of the same thing, ie, not the shroud.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Fairly certain, I can agree to that, but that leaves a window for evidence to show it is of the Roman era.

Here are the dates from wiki, one standard deviation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
  • Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
  • Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
  • Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
The dates don't overlap, but the dates on the control samples including the one from the other Queen Cleopatra does overlap.

I am confident in the dates produced by the labs, I just think there is something up with the shroud sample, in other words since the three samples dates do not overlap, that means the three samples are not of the same thing, ie, not the shroud.
Click to expand...
All of those dates are hundreds of years after the period in which Jesus is purported to have lived. I apologize if "Roman-era Judea" was too broad a time frame to make sense to you.
 
junkshop said:
Surely how the image was made / whether the pose is physically possible &c is irrelevant, when the cloth it is on has been proven to be centuries too young to be what it is claimed to be?


ETA: on reflection, how it was made is interesting. Still a fake, though.
Click to expand...
How it was made and the style of the image is a lot of clues that surpass the age of the cloth to me. But that does cement it well.

Not much original art has survived from the first century middle east, none of it is anything like the shroud.
As supersticious as people were back then a cloth imprinted with the image of anyone in a mysterious and glorious manner would have been news, a son of god would have made it into the new testament of the bible. It would have been physical proof of the glory of god.

Yet the shroud first appeared in 1355 and shows many traits of that era. Got to go with the obvious.
 
Pixel42 said:
A more plausible explanation is that the labs have underestimated their margin of error.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the margins of error were much closer on the control samples. Those dates did overlap, indicating those samples were from the same object.

And this was discussed in the carbon dating paper, but were just white washed.
 
8enotto said:
How it was made and the style of the image is a lot of clues that surpass the age of the cloth to me. But that does cement it well.

Not much original art has survived from the first century middle east, none of it is anything like the shroud.
As supersticious as people were back then a cloth imprinted with the image of anyone in a mysterious and glorious manner would have been news, a son of god would have made it into the new testament of the bible. It would have been physical proof of the glory of god.

Yet the shroud first appeared in 1355 and shows many traits of that era. Got to go with the obvious.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. As I said, it is a fake. An old fake, granted, but a fake nonetheless.

The techniques used to make it are interesting, and (as I understand it) still somewhat undetermined. This only makes them more interesting.
 
theprestige said:
All of those dates are hundreds of years after the period in which Jesus is purported to have lived. I apologize if "Roman-era Judea" was too broad a time frame to make sense to you.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. No matter what date, if the samples don't agree, then the samples were not from the same thing.

The control samples do agree on the date, that means the control samples were from the same items.
 
The "blood stains" on the Shroud were tested and found to be simply ocre, IIRC. How the rest was done us likely going to be something similarly low tech but just hasn't hit us yet.
 
bobdroege7 said:
That doesn't matter. No matter what date, if the samples don't agree, then the samples were not from the same thing.

The control samples do agree on the date, that means the control samples were from the same items.
Click to expand...
You're kinda sounding like those crackpots who argue that because we have two different but similar estimates for the age of the universe, from two different methodologies, there's a chance the age of the universe could be nowhere near either of those estimates.
 
bobdroege7 said:
That doesn't matter. No matter what date, if the samples don't agree, then the samples were not from the same thing.

The control samples do agree on the date, that means the control samples were from the same items.
Click to expand...

Well every effort was made to make absolutely sure that all the samples to be tested, except the control samples, were in fact from the Shroud of Turin. So just how were they not from the "same thing"? The fact that the dates don't overlap isn't even a fact. two of the dates Zurich and Tucson do overlap. one is 646 plus or minus 31 years i.e., 676-615 years. The other is 676 plus or minus 24 years i.e., 700-652 years. They overlap with 652-676 years. As for the Oxford results of 750 plus or minus 30 years. First they are not all that discordant with the other results. Secondly discordant or "strange" results from carbon 14 tests happen a lot which is why you don't just do one if at all possible. Especially for a item like this.

I will also point out that during it history the shroud was exposed to the elements and partly burned during a fire, all of which could affect the results of a test. Although in this case, efforts, extreme, were made to make sure such things did not affect the results of the tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom