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

[JayUtah]

Because I claimed the archbishop switched the samples because they were heterogeneous.
The paper concludes the tests are heterogeneous.
The two are consistent, and the paper does not rule out that the archbishop switched the samples, doesn't confirm it either.

My, what a simplistic approach. Try harder.

 

[bobdroege7]

Have you ever seen dirt?

Yes, it's different in different places, and usually contains microscopic particles of rock.

The point being is there is dirt on the shroud, specifically serpentine aragonite, that is specific to the area in and around Jerusalem.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, it's different in different places, and usually contains microscopic particles of rock.

The question was why a forger would think the dirt in Jerusalem would be different than the dirt in France. The answer is that everyone would know that, because everyone has seen dirt.

 

[bobdroege7]

My, what a simplistic approach. Try harder.

Why try harder when a simple explanation works.

Or tell me why the paper is wrong. That is tell me why the samples from the shroud are homogeneous.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, but how did he know dirt from Jerusalem is different from dirt in Lirey, France

You have me there.
Everyone, even clever forgers, know dirt is the same all over the world.

 

[JayUtah]

Why try harder when a simple explanation works.

The simple explanation is that the shroud is a medieval forgery.

See how unsatisfying that is? You seem to think you can just wield statistics and science as if they were magic spells, and that somehow this gives you evidence for such astounding claims as accusing the archbishop of sabotaging the findings—a claim for which you have zero evidence.

Or tell me why the paper is wrong. That is tell me why the samples from the shroud are homogeneous.

Straw man.

 

[bobdroege7]

The question was why a forger would think the dirt in Jerusalem would be different than the dirt in France. The answer is that everyone would know that, because everyone has seen dirt.

Yes, but we are talking about a Geologist's understanding of dirt, not a person from the 13th century.

But you are wrong, because at the time, everyone thought there was only fire, water, earth, air.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, but we are talking about a Geologist's understanding of dirt, not a person from the 13th century.

No, we don't have to suppose that a forger would need to know about geology in order to believe that he might need dirt from Jerusalem in order to forge something allegedly from Jerusalem.

But you are wrong, because at the time, everyone thought there was only fire, water, earth, air.

Wow, that's s a stretch.

 

[bobdroege7]

The simple explanation is that the shroud is a medieval forgery.

See how unsatisfying that is? You seem to think you can just wield statistics and science as if they were magic spells, and that somehow this gives you evidence for such astounding claims as accusing the archbishop of sabotaging the findings—a claim for which you have zero evidence.


Straw man.

But it's not a medieval forgery, because the carbon dating does not support that, because the dates for the shroud are heterogeneous.

The carbon 14 dating is inconclusive, and that's being generous.

Do you refuse to defend the bad statistics or are you incapable of refuting the paper concluding the dates are heterogeneous.

 

[Thermal]

Still, it's not a painting. The crown/cap of thorns wasn't left on the corpse as far as I know. We know it was a cap because of the injuries to the head revealed from the shroud.

We are not talking about whether or not it is a painting. I don't think you are flummoxed by the issue of 3-D splaying of the image.

 

[JayUtah]

But it's not a medieval forgery, because the carbon dating does not support that, because the dates for the shroud are heterogeneous.

You have quite a talent for missing the point. You claim you don't have to delve into the assumptions behind the research you've submitted as evidence because you have a "simple" answer derived solely from one of the paper's conclusions, and that ends the debate. I pointed out how anyone can put forward an answer, note that it's "simple," and propose to end the debate. Think really hard about why I might have made such a statement.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, we don't have to suppose that a forger would need to know about geology in order to believe that he might need dirt from Jerusalem in order to forge something allegedly from Jerusalem.


Wow, that's s a stretch.

The forger had 18th century knowledge in the 13th century, that's a big pill to swallow.

 

[JayUtah]

The forger had 18th century knowledge in the 13th century, that's a big pill to swallow.

No, we don't have to suppose that a 13th century forger knew he would need dirt from Jerusalem because of a particular thing someone would discover 500 years later about dirt.

In the 13th century, a person could be hit over the head with a hammer and killed. In the 19th century we discovered that this is due to electrons repelling each other according to like electromagnetic charge. Does that mean that no one knew in the 13th century that getting hit over the head with a hammer could be fatal?

 

[bobdroege7]

You have quite a talent for missing the point. You claim you don't have to delve into the assumptions behind the research you've submitted as evidence because you have a "simple" answer derived solely from one of the paper's conclusions, and that ends the debate. I pointed out how anyone can put forward an answer, note that it's "simple," and propose to end the debate. Think really hard about why I might have made such a statement.

I am not the one trying to end the debate.

What assumptions in the paper need delving into?

I don't need to think harder.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, we don't have to suppose that a 13th century forger knew he would need dirt from Jerusalem because of a particular thing someone would discover 500 years later about dirt.

In the 13th century, a person could be hit over the head with a hammer and killed. In the 19th century we discovered that this is due to electrons repelling each other according to like electromagnetic charge. Does that mean that no one knew in the 13th century that getting hit over the head with a hammer could be fatal?

You miss the point entirely.

There is dirt from Jerusalem on the shroud, how did the forger know that local dirt was different than Jerusalem dirt.

It's all the knowledge that the forger couldn't have had that are revealed in the shroud.

And if he was making an image of Christ, how would not have made a distorted image, because that would have got him killed.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not the one trying to end the debate.

To paraphrase you: "My simple answer is good enough and we don't need delve any deeper." Did I misunderstand you?

What assumptions in the paper need delving into?

Whether the method they use to determine heterogeneity is valid under your claim that the archbishop switched the fiber samples with ones not from the shroud.

I don't need to think harder.

In terms of your circular argument regarding the archbishop, you very much do.

 

[JayUtah]

There is dirt from Jerusalem on the shroud, how did the forger know that local dirt was different than Jerusalem dirt.

Asked and answered.

It's all the knowledge that the forger couldn't have had that are revealed in the shroud.

Asked and answered.

And if he was making an image of Christ, how would not have made a distorted image, because that would have got him killed.

Irrelevant speculation.

 

[Thermal]

Radiocarbon dating aside (and that's a huge aside), couldn't a forger have picked up a Jewish cloth from a pilgrim or trader or something and said "Aha! A perfect canvas for my forgery"

 

[arthwollipot]

At least we are learning about something in this thread! Don't knock it ..er... down.

Not what I expected to learn, to be honest.

 

[arthwollipot]

And how do you know it was mummy wrapped?

Because that is how you shroud a corpse for burial.

ETA:

Shroud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A traditional Jewish shroud consists of a tunic; a hood; pants that are extra-long and sewn shut at the bottom, so that separate foot coverings are not required; and a belt, which is tied in a knot shaped like the Hebrew letter shin, mnemonic of one of God's names, Shaddai. Traditionally, mound shrouds are made of white cotton, wool or linen, though any material can be used so long as it is made of natural fibre. Intermixture of two or more such fibres is forbidden,¹ due to the prohibition of Shaatnez. A pious Jewish man may next be enwrapped in either his kittel or his tallit, one tassel of which is defaced to render the garment ritually unfit, symbolizing the fact that the decedent is free from the stringent requirements of the 613 mitzvot (commandments). The shrouded body is wrapped in a winding sheet, termed a sovev in Hebrew (a cognate of svivon, the spinning Hanukkah toy that is familiar under its Yiddish name, dreidel), before being placed directly in the earth (or in a plain coffin of soft wood where it is required by governing health codes).