• 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?"

Thermal said:
Huh. Thanks for the radiocarcon dating summary. While it may have been posted, I missed it.

The shroud radiocarbon dating was done blind, with three other samples of fabrics of known ages. The three controls came up around their known ages, and the shroud in it's medeival age. That's a very convincing method.
Click to expand...
But....but....but....it was from a patched part of the shroud!

Oh yeah, how do you know that?

Because that would give it a younger date!

Yeah, but....how do you know the sample was from a patched part of the shroud?

Because the 14C dating must be wrong...
 
pgwenthold said:
But....but....but....it was from a patched part of the shroud!

Oh yeah, how do you know that?

Because that would give it a younger date!

Yeah, but....how do you know the sample was from a patched part of the shroud?

Because the 14C dating must be wrong...
Click to expand...
Don't forget the magical contamination.....
Now, as anyone with actual understanding of radiocarbon dating (i.e. not shroudies and @bobdroege7) would know, to distort the date from the first century to ~1350 would require more contamination than shroud.
 
bobdroege7 said:
There were sampling errors, not statistical errors, which resulted in the failed chi^2 test. The test indicates that the sample were not homogenous, therefore not representative of the true age of the relic.
Click to expand...

No matter how often you say it it doesn't make it true.
 
One thing I've always wondered (and apologies if this has been asked elsewhere): Even if one were to grant that this is the burial shroud of a crucifixion victim from somewhere around the time of Jesus, how do we know that this one belonged to Jesus himself and not some other guy? The number of people who were crucified must be in the thousands. Those are low odds even after the generous offer.

Is the inference meant to be, "A dead body wouldn't normally leave an image on a cloth, therefore this one must have been done supernaturally, therefore it had to be Jesus?"
 
I was considering a detailed rebuttal of the blood nonsense, starting with the excellent work of McCrone (remember him?) but given @bobdroege7's habit of seagull posting whatever nonsense his googling has found him today, without any attempt to understand, verify or (in my opinion) even read the material he finds, it's not worth my time.

I would point out that Kearse (a high school science teacher) states quite definitively that he's not able to demonstrate that his "blood" is human, or even what species it might be, and also that there is no evidence to support claims of the "blood" being group AB,
He also points out that the red colour of the shroud (now very faint since it's creation in the mid-fourteenth century, is certainly now down to blood. He accepts the fact, determinable from any introductory serology or criminology text, that blood discolours to brown within a very few weeks.
Hardly the smoking gun that @bobdroege7 seems to consider it.

Like many shroudies, Kearse is a catholic with a habit of dubious pronouncement of matters in the intercetion between religion and science.
BTW, Kearse has stated that regarding the supposed authenticity of the shroud " I simply do not know".
 
I Am The Scum said:
One thing I've always wondered (and apologies if this has been asked elsewhere): Even if one were to grant that this is the burial shroud of a crucifixion victim from somewhere around the time of Jesus, how do we know that this one belonged to Jesus himself and not some other guy? The number of people who were crucified must be in the thousands. Those are low odds even after the generous offer.

Is the inference meant to be, "A dead body wouldn't normally leave an image on a cloth, therefore this one must have been done supernaturally, therefore it had to be Jesus?"
Click to expand...
An actual point!!!
I've never heard a shroudie address this. One might suggest that after the relic trade began, someone grabbed a suitable burial cloth and passed it off as being from the godling. I expect they'd mutter about the supposed uniqueness of their shroud and forget about the other shroud cloth.
 
catsmate said:
Garbage pseudo-science.
Would you do some decent research of your own and not just post whatever debunked nonsense comes up in a Google search?
Even recent pseudo-science would be better.
Click to expand...
So not impressed with your psycho babble.
 
Thermal said:
Huh. Thanks for the radiocarbon dating summary. While it may have been posted earlier, I missed it. {ETA: the second, smaller link}

The shroud radiocarbon dating was done blind, with three other samples of fabrics of known ages. All four were tested blind of origin. The three controls came up around their known ages, and the shroud in it's medeival age. That's a very convincing method.
Click to expand...
Here from the original radiocarbon paper

"The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample."

Blind, but the labs could possibly identify which one was from the shroud.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Here from the original radiocarbon paper

"The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample."

Blind, but the labs could possibly identify which one was from the shroud.
Click to expand...
Even if true, so what? Are you saying all three labs falsified their results?
 
I Am The Scum said:
One thing I've always wondered (and apologies if this has been asked elsewhere): Even if one were to grant that this is the burial shroud of a crucifixion victim from somewhere around the time of Jesus, how do we know that this one belonged to Jesus himself and not some other guy? The number of people who were crucified must be in the thousands. Those are low odds even after the generous offer.

Is the inference meant to be, "A dead body wouldn't normally leave an image on a cloth, therefore this one must have been done supernaturally, therefore it had to be Jesus?"
Click to expand...
Estimates range from 50,000 to 2 million, a lot of them Jewish, so odds are in favor of another Jesus being crucified.

It was a man, and nothing supernatural about it. I keep saying that, you should at least believe me on that point.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Here from the original radiocarbon paper

"The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample."

Blind, but the labs could possibly identify which one was from the shroud.
Click to expand...
I saw that. Seems a fair "full discolsure" mention. Do you think that would mean the scientists would alter their findings if they knew which was the shroud? I think that might be a bit conspiratorial. Scientists generally like to be right, not push a ir/religious narrative.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Estimates range from 50,000 to 2 million, a lot of them Jewish, so odds are in favor of another Jesus being crucified.

It was a man, and nothing supernatural about it. I keep saying that, you should at least believe me on that point.
Click to expand...
Ok, but men don't leave imprints like that, and no known chemical reactions cause it. So what else should be assumed about the shroud? If it's just some guy, and some inexplicable image, then the only interesting part is how the image got there? No connection to the Jesus story at all?
 
bobdroege7 said:
Estimates range from 50,000 to 2 million, a lot of them Jewish, so odds are in favor of another Jesus being crucified.

It was a man, and nothing supernatural about it. I keep saying that, you should at least believe me on that point.
Click to expand...
You've been very inconsistent about it.
You have said that it was and was not Jesus.
You have said that the person in the shroud was and was not dead.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Estimates range from 50,000 to 2 million, a lot of them Jewish, so odds are in favor of another Jesus being crucified.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "another Jesus?" Your argument specifically requires the image on the shroud to have been created by a man who did not die, so that it could be passed off as the falsely resurrected Jesus. This would make it a fairly uncommon outcome. How many of your 50,000 to 2 million were buried while still alive?

bobdroege7 said:
It was a man, and nothing supernatural about it. I keep saying that, you should at least believe me on that point.
Click to expand...
So what reaction made the image on the shroud?
 
zooterkin said:
Even if true, so what? Are you saying all three labs falsified their results?
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that the sampling was not acceptable. They sampled the cloth from the edge, where it was handled frequently, and possibly the site of a repair.
 
JayUtah said:
What do you mean by "another Jesus?" Your argument specifically requires the image on the shroud to have been created by a man who did not die, so that it could be passed off as the falsely resurrected Jesus. This would make it a fairly uncommon outcome. How many of your 50,000 to 2 million were buried while still alive?


So what reaction made the image on the shroud?
Click to expand...
Get it right, Jesus of the gospels was entombed, not buried. Like only covered with a shroud in a limestone dug out tomb. Not covered in dirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom