• 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?"

To finish up this discussion of Carbon 14 results.

The results has reported were 646 plus or minus 31 years or 676-615 years, and 676 plus or minus 24 years or 700-652, then 750 plus or minus 30 years or 780-720 which are moderately discordant with the first two results.

But then the + or - figures are one standard deviation and calculating it into percentages means that there is a 68 percent chance that the actual result is 676-615, or 700-652, or 780-720. If you include two standard deviations than the chances are 95% likely to lie between 707-584, and 724-628, and 810-690. Note at two standard deviations all three overlap.
 
Blimey !

I thought that the Turin Shroud nonsense was gone for good. Getting a real noughties flashback vibe from this thread.
 
Nativity scene...
"The first living nativity scene, attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, occurred in 1223 in the Italian town of Greccio. Francis had been inspired by his visit to the Holy Land, where he had been shown Jesus's traditional birthplace."

Francis of Assisi...
At Greccio near Assisi, around 1220, Francis celebrated Christmas by setting up the first known presepio or crèche (Nativity scene). His nativity imagery reflected the scene in traditional paintings. He used real animals to create a living scene so that the worshipers could contemplate the birth of the child Jesus in a direct way, making use of the senses, especially sight.

catsmate said:
The evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
Click to expand...
What if the intent of Assisi (Nativity scene) and the anonymous Shroud of Turin both weren't intended as deception?
 
dellarte said:
Nativity scene...
"The first living nativity scene, attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, occurred in 1223 in the Italian town of Greccio. Francis had been inspired by his visit to the Holy Land, where he had been shown Jesus's traditional birthplace."

Francis of Assisi...
At Greccio near Assisi, around 1220, Francis celebrated Christmas by setting up the first known presepio or crèche (Nativity scene). His nativity imagery reflected the scene in traditional paintings. He used real animals to create a living scene so that the worshipers could contemplate the birth of the child Jesus in a direct way, making use of the senses, especially sight.


What if the intent of Assisi (Nativity scene) and the anonymous Shroud of Turin both weren't intended as deception?
Click to expand...
The shroud was used as a money making tool, part of the pilgrim trade.
 
GlennB said:
It seems academic -
"In 1988, scientists used radiocarbon dating to determine that the Shroud of Turin was made between 1260 and 1390 AD,"
Click to expand...
I knew people who were involved in that research. All of them agreed that the yarn was from this period. None of them believed that the shroud was an actual relic of a burial.

[No, I can't quote sources. This was discussion in several faculty lounges.]
 
catsmate said:
You can't nail someone up by nails through the palms. It's been tried.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why the image on the shroud is correct, and all the paintings on the subject are wrong, and which ones would the forger have used?

The fingers being too long on the shroud is also a problem, any image of Christ from that time period should be perfect, not distorted.

The fact that the image is a photographic negative is sufficient to prove that it is not a forgery.
 
Pacal said:
Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452 and died in 1519. The shroud was first displayed about a century before he was born.
Click to expand...
IIRC the da Vinci theory is based on the assumption that the original crappy fake that fooled no one was replaced in the late 15th century by the much more sophisticated, da Vinci produced, one we now see.

Not sure how they explain the cloth being older than that.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The fact that the image is a photographic negative is sufficient to prove that it is not a forgery.
Click to expand...
The fact that the image's hands are conveniently covering its genitalia is proof that it isn't genuine. As is the carbon dating, the weave. the shape of the head...
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
At the risk of repeating myself: conspiratorial bollocks.
Click to expand...
Not total conspiratorial bollocks

" The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop. The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol."

www.wikiwand.com

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikiwand

The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable...
www.wikiwand.com
 
Mojo said:
The fact that the image's hands are conveniently covering its genitalia is proof that it isn't genuine. As is the carbon dating, the weave. the shape of the head...
Click to expand...

The fact that the man on the shroud is naked is proof that it is not a forgery.

There is evidence of herringbone weave back to 500 BC and there is trade between Italy and the Middle East from at least that period.

What's wrong with the shape of the head?
 
Mojo said:
The fact that the image's hands are conveniently covering its genitalia is proof that it isn't genuine. As is the carbon dating, the weave. the shape of the head...
Click to expand...
Yes, the fingers are extra long on the right hand to cover the genitals. That's all I have to say about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom