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

[zooterkin]

Nope, not Jabba.

There is still a problem with the heterogeneity of the shroud samples.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19301865

And the shroud appeared in 1355, but the range of the radiocarbon dates are 1260 to 1390.

So it's inconclusive.

Pretty certain it's nothing to do with 1st Century Jerusalem, though, whether or not there was a person called Jesus around then.

 

[Thermal]

And the shroud appeared in 1355, but the range of the radiocarbon dates are 1260 to 1390.

So it's inconclusive.

Pretty conclusively not 2000 years old.

Do you demand the very hour it was made from radiocarbon dating, lest you declare it to be as old as you please?

 

[bobdroege7]

Pretty certain it's nothing to do with 1st Century Jerusalem, though, whether or not there was a person called Jesus around then.

There were lots of dudes named Jesus around at the time, pretty common name.

 

[bobdroege7]

I think it's highly indicative, that the samples cluster around the date it's held to have first appeared.

Anyway, what makes you think there was ever any body, alive or dead, inside the shroud?

Because it's not a painting.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body, if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

 

[bobdroege7]

Did you read the paper?

Did you?

 

[JayUtah]

Because it's not a painting.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body, if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

Can you explain your double standard, please?

 

[JayUtah]

Did you?

Why won't you answer my question? You proudly declared that you didn't need to read the last paper you cited. It's reasonable to ask whether you read this one before anyone wastes time on a detailed discussion of it with you.

 

[Thermal]

Because it's not a painting.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body, if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

They have. Dry rubbing a pigment and gelatin solution which existed at the time with a wooden spoon produces a near identical image with no brushstrokes. It is also consistent with the image only showing strongly on the top of the shroud (the fiber discoloration is only on the upper fibers).

We know there is no such chemical reaction which would negate the 3D draping effect, so any chemical reaction from body contact is out.

 

[Mojo]

We know there is no such chemical reaction which would negate the 3D draping effect, so any chemical reaction from body contact is out.

And also:

Dead men leave no images on their burial shrouds.

 

[theprestige]

Because it's not a painting.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body, if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

If you can come up with an actual chemical reaction, I would like to hear it.

 

[catsmate]

Nope, not Jabba.

There is still a problem with the heterogeneity of the shroud samples.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19301865

No we don't.
It's more of the magical contamination nonsense. Except this time Walsh and Schwalbe are staking their flag on the (metaphorical) hill of pentane and hexane.
Of course even if their nonsense was true, it'd mean that the Oxford radiocarbon date was more correct than the others and the shroud would still be a medieval fake.

What next? The 'Blue Quad Mosaic'? Invisible repairs?

And the shroud appeared in 1355, but the range of the radiocarbon dates are 1260 to 1390.

So? That's what "range" means.

So it's inconclusive.

No it's not. You're evading again.

And while you're here.
1. What about the Jerusalem limestone claims? Do you accept now that they're untrue?
2. Do you accept the claimed commonality with the image form the Pray Codex is nonsense?
3. When will you be showing us you claimed first century Middle Eastern herringbone linen?

 

[catsmate]

Because it's not a painting.

Wrong.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body,

Evidence? More Magic God Energy?

if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

The shroud has been replicated, despite you ignoring this awkward fact.

Did you?

Yes. Unlike you, I'd read it previously, and understood it

 

[Thermal]

And also:

Doubly so for live people not leaving imprints on linen. Even if mostly dead. Unless they have like really poor hygiene. Even then, I don't think a few hours of linen exposure, especially after just having been washed, would permanently soil their sheets for centuries.

 

[junkshop]

Because it's not a painting.

It's some sort of chemical reaction that occurred in the cloth due to its wrapping of a dead body, if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

Hang on there, champ, you were just arguing that the body was not dead. Which is it?

 

[Mojo]

Hang on there, champ, you were just arguing that the body was not dead. Which is it?

Schrödinger's Christ.

 

[KAJ]

Nope, not Jabba.

There is still a problem with the heterogeneity of the shroud samples.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19301865

And the shroud appeared in 1355, but the range of the radiocarbon dates are 1260 to 1390.

So it's inconclusive.

Don't expect me to comment on this paper until you demonstrate that you have read my post #341, especially why you consider unquantified heterogeneity to be "a problem", and why the issues I raised don't apply to this paper.
Recall that I said:

Overall it appears that you use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost — for support rather than illumination. If I see signs that you are moving goalposts, or trying a gish gallop, or evading my questions and comments, then I'll stop engaging with you - I value my time above your approval.​

 

[catsmate]

Don't expect me to comment on this paper until you demonstrate that you have read my post #341, especially why you consider unquantified heterogeneity to be "a problem", and why the issues I raised don't apply to this paper.
Recall that I said:

Overall it appears that you use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost — for support rather than illumination. If I see signs that you are moving goalposts, or trying a gish gallop, or evading my questions and comments, then I'll stop engaging with you - I value my time above your approval.​

I agree.
The behaviour exhibited by @bobdroege7 exhibits the classic signs of poor quality attempts to support a belief system by posting semi-random material that superficially appears to support those opinions.
The link to Hugh Farey's website is a classic such mistake, even a superficial reading of the webpage would show that it contradicted @bobdroege7's beliefs.

 

[arthwollipot]

if you can come up with an actual method of the forgery, I would like to hear it.

Scientist reproduces the Shroud of Turin with medieval materials – The History Blog

www.thehistoryblog.com

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

 

[bobdroege7]

Scientist reproduces the Shroud of Turin with medieval materials – The History Blog

www.thehistoryblog.com

but it's a rare AB blood type on the shroud, how did the forger in the 14th century know about blood types?

 

[Thermal]

but it's a rare AB blood type on the shroud, how did the forger in the 14th century know about blood types?

*narrators voiceover: there was no blood found on the shroud*