• 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?"

Joe Random said:
Trivia time.

Back in the 90's on USENET there was one religious nutter named John Boatwright who had a particular fixation on the shroud. In one of the threads he had going on the issue several people well versed in it brought up the points about image distortion etc. to him, and he eventually convinced himself that four angles came down into the tomb and held the shroud taut between them, so that the 'resurrection energy' or whatever coming off of Jesus' body made the image look the way it does. IIRC he even tried to dig up some Biblical passages as support.

He had some similar whacked out notions regarding Noah's Ark, but for the moment I can't remember those. Reading the above refreshed my memory about his shroud ideas.
Click to expand...
You appear to have been beset by the Rouge Angles of Satin...
 
catsmate said:
Evidence for this assertion?
And we're still waiting for you support your claims regarding the herringbone weave....
Click to expand...
I would think it's more likely that is a genuinely old Jerusulum area cloth. I mean, if you were a relic forger in Italy, and the relic you were forging was supposed to be, even at that time, over a thousand years old, and pilgrims and traders might recognize authenticity, wouldn't you ask one of the crusaders or Templars or whoever to score you some old Jerusulem area cloth? It makes more sense than making a relic out of brand new Italian cloth.
 
Since we're heading into Fringe Eset time I think it's time to recapitulate 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)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue

Radiocarbon dating.
And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. the samples were subjected to a dating technique called accelerator mass spectroscopy, selected because it required less sample material than earlier techniques; three labs, Oxford, Arizona and Zürich were selected to carry out the testing
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. the three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples.
8. later various claims of mysterious contaminants or patching were invoked to justify non-acceptance of the dating results

And finally more than any shroudie ever wanted to know about decontamination of the shroud samples.
Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

Zürich.
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.

The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

Arizona.
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

Oxford.
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.

Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.

As a result of this overwhelming evidence it is reasonable to assume that:

The "Shroud" is a medieval fake.
 
Thermal said:
I would think it's more likely that is a genuinely old Jerusulum area cloth. I mean, if you were a relic forger in Italy, and the relic you were forging was supposed to be, even at that time, over a thousand years old, and pilgrims and traders might recognize authenticity, wouldn't you ask one of the crusaders or Templars or whoever to score you some old Jerusulem area cloth? It makes more sense than making a relic out of brand new Italian cloth.
Click to expand...
I don't think they went to that much trouble. The forger used European cloth (the herringbone weave shows that) and clearly knew little of Jewish customs.
The idea that there is evidence for Limestone fro the MidEast on the shroud is one of serial fraudster Max Frei's lies. W dealt with that one in the last shroud thread.
 
catsmate said:
I don't think they went to that much trouble. The forger used European cloth (the herringbone weave shows that) and clearly knew little of Jewish customs.
The idea that there is evidence for Limestone fro the MidEast on the shroud is one of serial fraudster Max Frei's lies. W dealt with that one in the last shroud thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I didn't follow the last one. There is a lot of conflicting information out there about this thing. Regarding the blood, there are sources that say it was found and identified as human and type AB. Others say it has traits of blood, but belongs to an "unidentified species".
 
Thermal said:
Thanks, I didn't follow the last one. There is a lot of conflicting information out there about this thing. Regarding the blood, there are sources that say it was found and identified as human and type AB. Others say it has traits of blood, but belongs to an "unidentified species".
Click to expand...
Science, however, says there is no proof of blood......

The pollen/limestone nonsense was pushed by Swiss criminologist (and convicted fraudster) Max Frei (or Max Frei-Sulzer) back in 73. Him and his amazing tape lifts....

He was convicted of forging evidence in his work (as a freelance criminologist), and also proved incompetent when he "authenticated" the Hitler Diaries as genuine, when they were actually pretty obvious forgeries.
 
Pacal said:
Aside from the fact that all four Gospel accounts state emphatically that Jesus died on the cross...
Click to expand...
This is why I asked why our OP has referenced the Qur'an a number of times. Islam teaches that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. The OP has also tried to implicate this teaching in a supposed motivation for why the Archbishop of Turin would switch the samples, but I'm unclear on where that argument is supposed to end up. For the sake of argument, if the shroud is authentic and it authentically depicts someone who wasn't dead at the time it was applied, and the Qur'an teaches that Jesus wasn't dead when he was shrouded and entombed, then the shroud...proves that Islam is correct? I don't know if that's the line of reasoning, but if so, it's certainly a novel one.
 
catsmate said:
I don't think they went to that much trouble. The forger used European cloth (the herringbone weave shows that) and clearly knew little of Jewish customs.
The idea that there is evidence for Limestone fro the MidEast on the shroud is one of serial fraudster Max Frei's lies. W dealt with that one in the last shroud thread.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly wasn't Frei likely also responsible for the almost certainly fake Palestine pollen results?
 
catsmate said:
Since we're heading into Fringe Eset time I think it's time to recapitulate 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)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue

Radiocarbon dating.
And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. the samples were subjected to a dating technique called accelerator mass spectroscopy, selected because it required less sample material than earlier techniques; three labs, Oxford, Arizona and Zürich were selected to carry out the testing
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. the three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples.
8. later various claims of mysterious contaminants or patching were invoked to justify non-acceptance of the dating results

And finally more than any shroudie ever wanted to know about decontamination of the shroud samples.
Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

Zürich.
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.

The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

Arizona.
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

Oxford.
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.

Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.

As a result of this overwhelming evidence it is reasonable to assume that:

The "Shroud" is a medieval fake.
Click to expand...
Thanks!!
 
Pacal said:
Looked at the paper, https://www.researchgate.net/public..._1988_Turin_Shroud_radiocarbon_dating_results, it is bad. Do they not understand standard deviations?
Click to expand...
That's not even the worst of that nonsense. First, the publishing organization is focused on acheiropoietos. To save you from Googling, that's the pseudoscience that tries to pretend there is a scientific explanation for Christian icons that are purported to have been created by supernatural means. The organization no longer exists.

Second, the method they propose involves a technique they admit is novel—some kind of newfangled multivariate analysis of variance. So right off their claim that "robust" statistical methods give a better answer suffers from begging the question of its robustness. It's either new or it's robust. It can't easily be both. The method isn't explained in the paper. It's covered in another paper that lives—not surprisingly—at the end of a dead hyperlink. Apparently this method wasn't good enough to be actually published in a serious journal. In any case we can't evaluate the method for correctness or robustness.

Third, the method is transparently p-hacking. This is the pseudoscience practice of comparing every variance in a system to every other variance and trying to draw conclusions about positive or negative correlations that are revealed. It's a particular form of HARKing: Hypothesization After Results are Known. After bragging about their ability to exhaustively run every possible analysis, they cherry pick some of the results and declare the samples to be heterogenous.

Fourth, the premise of the paper is that samples taken from a single piece of the shroud should show a degree of homogeneity no matter how they were subsampled. The authors find heterogeneity in one axis but not in the other. This does not support the hypothesis that the fiber samples were switched.
 
JayUtah said:
This is why I asked why our OP has referenced the Qur'an a number of times. Islam teaches that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. The OP has also tried to implicate this teaching in a supposed motivation for why the Archbishop of Turin would switch the samples, but I'm unclear on where that argument is supposed to end up. For the sake of argument, if the shroud is authentic and it authentically depicts someone who wasn't dead at the time it was applied, and the Qur'an teaches that Jesus wasn't dead when he was shrouded and entombed, then the shroud...proves that Islam is correct? I don't know if that's the line of reasoning, but if so, it's certainly a novel one.
Click to expand...
I am not the OP, you are confused.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I am not the OP, you are confused.
Click to expand...
But the assumption is correct, that you are arguing that this was the burial cloth of Jesus, just that he hadn't died?

I confess that you seem to be arguing simultaneously that it is both genuine yet not the Christ, which is confusing.
 
Thermal said:
But the assumption is correct, that you are arguing that this was the burial cloth of Jesus, just that he hadn't died?

I confess that you seem to be arguing simultaneously that it is both genuine yet not the Christ, which is confusing.
Click to expand...
I try to refrain from calling it the shroud of Christ, may have mistaken done that. I try to say the man in the shroud, who is definitely not Christ or God.

Yeah, it's confusing to say the man in the shroud, which is a burial cloth, was not dead at the time he was buried in a tomb.

But that's my opinion, that he didn't die, he survived the crucifixion attempt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom