• 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?"

I Am The Scum said:
It looks like we're actually straying a bit into conspiracy theory territory. Maybe my request will have better luck on a different subject with a different punter. @bobdroege7 , what do you think actually happened? The best summary I can come up with is:

1. Jesus is put on the cross.
2. Jesus is injured (but not killed) as a result.
3. Jesus is removed from the cross, presumed dead by the Romans.
4. His disciples wrap him in a burial shroud.
5. They bury him.
6. An image of Jesus supernaturally appears on the burial shroud.
7. Jesus recovers from his injuries and walks away.

If this is incorrect, let me know. #4 and #5 are very strange things to do to a living person. #6 is a strange position to take for someone who (presumably) thinks the entire crucifixion involved nothing supernatural. And if #6 is denied, then how did the image get there and how can it be thought of as "authentic?"
Click to expand...
#5 is not correct, they did not bury the man in the shroud, they put him in a tomb. Usually they wait about a year and then put the bones in a box.
 
bobdroege7 said:
It is not a supernatural image, and also not a painting.
Click to expand...
Nor is it a Jewish burial shroud from the 1st century.

bobdroege7 said:
Maybe we do have theological problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, we really do. And you don't seem particularly helpful in resolving them.

I can't be sure, but it seems like you're trying to prove this is the burial shroud of Jesus of the Qur'an, not Jesus of the Bible. Is that right? Is that why you're trying to claim the Archbishop of Turin secretly wanted to prove the shroud was false by switching fiber samples? He needed to prove it was fake because it proves the Qur'an story of the death of Jesus instead of the Bible one?
 
For me, the only part of the shroud (aside from its general artistic and historical significance) is whether the image was transferred from draping over a body, or applied by an artisan. If the former, it would be a persuasive bit of evidence giving at least some credibility to the idea that Jesus was some kind of magical guy. That's intriguing, if not exactly conclusive.

But we know because of the 3D draping affect that this could not be so. The image did not come from a body that the shroud was draped over. It was pulled taut and 2D portrait generated. So barring something that accounts for the lack of a draping effect in contact with the body, its an ill-thought reconstruction at best.

I always thought of the watermark image as having been burned on, rather than painted. Some type of oil lamp or something that permanently discolored what it was close to, that we haven't studied the residues of (across centuries) to recognize.

As far as the realism of the physiology, I'm wondering if they might have actually crucified a real man to get the physical details +/- correct, and modeled him.for the relic. I mean, it wouldn't be the most sadistic thing the bastards ever did.

Regarding the Jerusalem limestone, it's conceivable that a pilgrim or Templar or someone brought a handful of dust back from his travels, perhaps from where he believed was the actual tomb of Jesus, and sprinked it on the shroud, either in a ritual or symbolic way. It's all in the realm of possibility.

In any event, if there is nothing supernatural about it, then it's an interesting historical piece, but basically can't be what it claims to be.
 
catsmate said:
OK, so I'm alone, unbothered and sitting comfortably in front of a large screen and keyboard. Time to discuss limestone and, given that shroudies are involved, lies, fraud and stupidity. Fetch a beverage, sit down and relax, this may be a bit long. I'm in the mood to finish this particular nonsense once and fore all.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Firstly the basics; limestone is chemically, mostly, calcite a form of calcium carbonate. It's a sedimentary (or secondary if you remember your geological classifications) form of rock created by the accumulation of marine debris, mostly sea shells. It's rather useful stuff in industry and agriculture, and of course in pedagogery. The constituents and impurities can be useful in determining it's source. It's also a common matrix for fossils (remember Mary Anning?).

Specifically regarding the shroud, "limestone" is bandied about by shroudies to cover certain material removed (allegedly) by tape lifts, that is adhesive tape applied to the surface of the cloth to collect particulates there.
  • As an aside Max Frei did not invent this technique, that's a lie promulgated by his supporters. It was used in criminology before him.
Now these alleged tape lifts (I'll some to why I use 'alleged' in a moment, be patient) allegedly recovered dust, pollen and other materials. I shall leave the Frei pollen nonsense aside for the moment as even the hardcore shroudies tend to play down that particular brand of nonsense these days.

Now Frei removed material from the shroud in 1973 and made a number of claims. Mainly he concentrated on the pollen but he made a number of (unpublished) assertions regarding microscopic analysis of the 'dirt' removed.

Let us more on to 1978 when the shroud was being subjected to various poorly controlled spectrographic analyses. Our old friend Ray Roger (no relation) was involved in that (remember STURP?) and (it is claimed) that an odd result was encountered at the heel of the picture. Now John Heller (mainly in his book Report on the Shroud of Turin) devotes pages to the supposed excitement caused by this, inventing much dailogue for the book.
Of course he wasn't actually there.... Oh and the account of the Gilberts' (Roger and Marty) doesn't match with theirs.

Now their published work ('Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin’) lists five spots with unusual spectral results. Specifically two on the foot stain and three other nearby points. They also make no reference to 'dirt', 'rock' or 'limestone'. Oh and their graphs show no differences between these locations and elsewhere.
Remember this.

In 1986 enter one Joseph Kohlbeck (who worked for Hercules Aerospace as a microscopist specialising in metals, not rocks or soil) and who was an old friend of a Rogers was sent some samples for analysis. Note the lack of provenance.
He published a "paper" (the scare quotes are entirely intended) called 'New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem' in a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review.
This is not a 'journal', no matter what the shroudies may say, and has no peer review or other safeguards.
The lifted dirt was sent for analysis to Ricardo Levi-Setti (at the Enrico Fermi Institute) electron probe analysis.

Now the problems with this article are legion; lack of experience (his co-author Eugenia Nitowski was an archaeologist, we'll get back to her in a moment), lack of comparison samples (they only compared the 'dirt' to samples taken in modern Jerusalem rather than, say, France) and lack of verified provenance for the supposed shroud samples.
  • As an aside, for anyone interested in the composition of limestone around Jerusalem, I recommend 'The Influence of Karst Aquifer Mineralogy and Geochemistry on Groundwater Characteristics: West Bank, Palestine’ in Water in 2018. It's examples show a distinctly different composition to that used to compare the alleged shroud sample.
Also the article published images of the graphs that were fuzzy and tiny. They're also listed as being "adapted by E. Nitowski" which is odd.

Now Kohlbeck clamed that

This, to use my favourite descriptor, bollocks.

Now I won't be going in to microscopic (hah!) details on the results. But let's take a look
  • One of the main problems with analysing the article is the awful graphs. One might speculate that the were intended, in size, fuzziness and use of log/log scales, to be deceptive....
  • Did I mention that Eugenia Nitowski was also Sister Damian of the Cross?
Anyway, there are better versions of the graphs around, though you have to look for them. I recommend Nitowski's unpublished 'The Field and Laboratory Report of the Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem'. I'm sure @bobdroege7 can supply a link to this important document for those interested.
Examining the graphs shows massive discrepancies that immediately invalidate Kohlbeck's assertion of an "unusually close match". Some data extraction to find the real numbers is rather interesting.....
  • Now my first time using the forum's table function. OK that did not work, C&P it is.

Element or isotopeAlleged shroud fibresAlleged Jerusalem tomb
Aluminium55>2000
Calcium 40100004100
Calcium 425022
Calcium 4415066
Chromium 5225<20
Gallium 6975800
Gallium 7125360
Iron 5616085
Iron 57190105
Lithium<20130
Magnesium 24160520
Magnesium 2535100
Magnesium 2650100
Potassium 391764600
Potassium 41105340
Silicon 2820320
Silicon 29<2022
Sodium7002800

Now,. do those results look like an "unusually close match"?

To summarise. The alleged limestone on the shroud that is claimed to be identical to that from Jerusalem falls on a number of grounds.
  1. There is no certainty that the supposed shroud sample is genuine.
  2. There is no range of control samples, for example from near to where the shroud first emerged in France.
  3. There is no certainty that the supposed Jerusalem sample is representative of that locality.
  4. The motivations of those who wrote the report are questionable.
  5. The data simple doesn't match up with the claims made for it.

Fast forward to 1988 and it's both a high and a low point for "shroud research". Firstly Real Science is paying attention!!!, in the form of actual experts and cutting-edge radiocarbon dating. Then October 13th rolls around and Disaster!!! Science says it's a medieval fake.

View attachment 58885

This leads to the whole nonsense about invisible patches and fakery in a pathetically desperate attempt to explain away the results.
That same year saw shroudie John Jackson claim that there was "an abundance of microscopic dust or dirt" in an article he wrote for Shroud Spectrum International. This seems to have kickstarted a tradition of shroudies frequently claiming that numerous samples were found, and sometimes identified, on the knee, the nose and elsewhere.
Curiously two papers (Eric Jumper’s 'A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin' and 'Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin' by our old friends Schwalbe and Rogers) make no such claims.

Conclusion.
There is no evidence of limestone per se on the shroud. The samples which may or may not have been taken from the cloth show no close match to any samples of Middle Eastern limestone.
The shroud remains, definitively, a medieval fake.


So @bobdroege7 will you accept the facts? Or return to conspiratorial/denialist mode?
Click to expand...

Not until someone explains the lousy chi^2 test on the shroud from the radiocarbon paper.

Also would be nice to know the identity of the forger and how the forgery was done.

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

Shroud of Turin Website
shroud.com

Just for the picture, you can see the L shaped pattern of burn holes on the shroud, and the same L shaped pattern is on the Pray Codex.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Not until someone explains the lousy chi^2 test on the shroud from the radiocarbon paper.
Click to expand...
Don't change the subject. There is no need to try to explain why there is local Jerusalem dust on the shroud because the evidence that there is any on it is eminently unreliable. Either address the facts in Catsmate's presentation or withdraw the claim.

bobdroege7 said:
Also would be nice to know the identity of the forger and how the forgery was done.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be nice. However, it's not necessary in order to determine that the shroud is most likely a medieval forgery.
 
JayUtah said:
Nor is it a Jewish burial shroud from the 1st century.


Yes, we really do. And you don't seem particularly helpful in resolving them.

I can't be sure, but it seems like you're trying to prove this is the burial shroud of Jesus of the Qur'an, not Jesus of the Bible. Is that right? Is that why you're trying to claim the Archbishop of Turin secretly wanted to prove the shroud was false by switching fiber samples? He needed to prove it was fake because it proves the Qur'an story of the death of Jesus instead of the Bible one?
Click to expand...

No, it's just the man on the shroud, and the image was produced by a live body.

That's why the Archbishop would need to prove the shroud was a fake.
 
JayUtah said:
Don't change the subject. There is no need to try to explain why there is local Jerusalem dust on the shroud because the evidence that there is any on it is eminently unreliable. Either address the facts in Catsmate's presentation or withdraw the claim.


Yes, it would be nice. However, it's not necessary in order to determine that the shroud is most likely a medieval forgery.
Click to expand...
Is it most likely, or are you sure beyond any reasonable doubt?
 
bobdroege7 said:
No, it's just the man on the shroud, and the image was produced by a live body.
Click to expand...
According to you.

You're the one who brought up the Qur'an description of the death of Jesus, apparently apropos of nothing. Why did you quote the Qur'an? How is that relevant to anything? You let slip in an earlier post that something about all this proves Christianity is false. What exactly about the shroud proves this? Why is it useful to make such a claim?

bobdroege7 said:
That's why the Archbishop would need to prove the shroud was a fake.
Click to expand...
The archbishop doesn't believe the shroud depicts a living person. He has a highly vested interest in establishing the shroud as a genuine relic so that his church can continue to receive disproportionate pilgrimage.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
Is it most likely, or are you sure beyond any reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...
I have no reason to doubt the scientific and historical findings showing the shroud to be a medieval forgery. You've given me no reason I haven't already investigated. I have considerable reason to doubt the evidence purporting to shroud to be a 1st century Jewish burial cloth, and further purporting that the forgery evidence is non-credible. I have given you those reasons and invited you to address them.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Not until someone explains the lousy chi^2 test on the shroud from the radiocarbon paper.

Also would be nice to know the identity of the forger and how the forgery was done.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to know all the precise details of people living centuries ago. Not a realistic want, though.
bobdroege7 said:

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

Shroud of Turin Website
shroud.com

Just for the picture, you can see the L shaped pattern of burn holes on the shroud, and the same L shaped pattern is on the Pray Codex.
Click to expand...
Could the shroud forger have gotten some of his inspiration from the already existing Pray Codex?
 
bobdroege7 said:
Not until someone explains the lousy chi^2 test on the shroud from the radiocarbon paper.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Sweet effing jeebus but this is just pathetic.
This has been addressed. Study some stats.
bobdroege7 said:
Also would be nice to know the identity of the forger and how the forgery was done.
Click to expand...
So you want to know who faked a relic seven centuries ago....
The shroud has been reproduced using medieval techniques, remember?
bobdroege7 said:

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

Shroud of Turin Website
shroud.com

Just for the picture, you can see the L shaped pattern of burn holes on the shroud, and the same L shaped pattern is on the Pray Codex.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Utterly ridiculous.

I take it from this hurried change f subject you won't b addressing your limestone claims, and my refutation of them?
 
bobdroege7 said:
No, it's just the man on the shroud, and the image was produced by a live body.
Click to expand...
No proof of that, just your assertions.
bobdroege7 said:
That's why the Archbishop would need to prove the shroud was a fake.
Click to expand...
Utterly stupid
bobdroege7 said:
Is it most likely, or are you sure beyond any reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...
Beyond reasonable doubt. And I've been juror and witness.
Not beyond unreasonable doubt, which is all you and your fellow shroudies have.


And, while we're at it @bobdroege7 , where are the examples to support your claim that herringbone weave was commonly used in the Middle East in the first century CE?
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Sweet effing jeebus but this is just pathetic.
This has been addressed. Study some stats.

So you want to know who faked a relic seven centuries ago....
The shroud has been reproduced using medieval techniques, remember?

Sigh. Utterly ridiculous.

I take it from this hurried change f subject you won't b addressing your limestone claims, and my refutation of them?
Click to expand...
Here is the paper with the statistics, how about you address that instead of asking me to study some stats.


"An X^2 test value 8.43 > 5.99 states that there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the results of the 3 laboratories. From the X^2 test result, one can determinate the % significance level : 2.718^-(8.43/2) = 1.3 %. From this test, one may conclude, that the probability of obtaining, by chance alone, a scatter as high as that observed for the Shroud, is only 13 in 1000. Because we assume all radiocarbon dates to be correct, we must conclude, that the SMALL samples, taken at the same place, do not have the same radioactivity and are not REPRESENTATIVE for the Shroud."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom