• 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?"

Mojo said:
I think bobdroege7 is now arguing that Christ wasn't dead, and just left an image on his bed linen, as always happens when people sleep in a bed with sheets on it.
Click to expand...
Not that much.
Though I did once wake up glued to the bedsheet by my own blood....
 
bobdroege7 said:
Because it is the same blood type found on the Sudarium, the face cloth from the entombment of the man in the shroud.
Click to expand...
Oh look, a whole new thread of nonsense......

For those who may be confused by @bobdroege7's habitual one sentence seagull posts, this refers to the Sudarium of Oviedo (wiki) another (alleged) relic of the (alleged) Jesus. There are a number of issues with this:
1. It's not from the first century.
2. It and the shroud are somewhat mutually contradictory, given that both appear to have been wrapped around the (alleged) Jesus's head.
3. There is no evidence of blood or other bodily secretions that can be determinative of a blood group.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Well, it was one person who did the sampling.

"and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud."

" All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography."

"The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography."

From the shroud paper https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Were they stupid or duped? The guy who did the sampling didn't see the packaging.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Not everyone needs to believe in faked samples.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I did not address that post, because it did not address specific limit for the chi^2 test which the radiocarbon paper posted.

Also, I should have posted that the control samples showed heterogeneity less than the limit, rather than no homogeneity.

So still you have not addressed the issue with the results of the radiocarbon paper with respect to homogeneity.
Click to expand...

Not true.
KAJ said:
<snip>
Firstly I'll address the crux of your proposition, that data differences ("dispersion") between labs suggests that the samples did not come from one source. In #76 you said:
That doesn't matter. No matter what date, if the samples don't agree, then the samples were not from the same thing.​
​
The control samples do agree on the date, that means the control samples were from the same items.​

This evidences a fundamental misconception (not restricted to you!), that heterogeneity is binary - things are either heterogenous or not. In reality nothing is perfectly homogenous, there are always real differences between subsamples - not just measurement errors. Those differences may be too small to matter but, no matter how small, they can be demonstrated given enough data and appropriate data analyses. If data analysis doesn't show a difference that does not mean there is no difference, only that the data and/or analysis are inadequate to show the difference.

This illustrates one of the problems with null hypothesis significance tests (NHST), we don't believe the null hypothesis anyway (see, for example, link). We know the SoT is not perfectly homogenous, it is at least somewhat heterogenous. If NHST tests do not demonstrate heterogeneity then either the data or the data analysis are inadequate.

To support your proposition you would need to show that the sample dispersion was so great as to be incompatible with "samples ... from the same thing". But we do not know the dispersion expected of "samples ... from the same thing". The control samples give some relevant information, but it would be a great assumption that the heterogeneity of the ToS and the controls were similar.

The non-overlap of standard deviations you used first (#70) and the chi^2 analysis used by Damon et al. compare the between lab dispersion to (estimates of) within lab dispersion, not relevant to your proposition. link is relevant here.

Even worse, in this data set samples and labs are inextricably confounded, it isn't possible to distinguish sample effects from lab effects. Again, the control samples give some relevant information, but it would be a great assumption that between lab differences in treatment of ToS samples were the same as differences in their treatment of controls.

To add to the difficulties, Damon et al. Table 1 gives only 12 results for the ToS, 4 for each sample/lab. With such a small data set no statistical test will have useful power, you really have no chance of showing undue heterogeneity unless it is massive.

<snip>
Click to expand...
By the way, the chi^2 analysis used by Damon et al. is not a chi^2 test in the common meaning of that phrase (Wikipedia), albeit it is an analysis yielding a statistic wih a chi^2 distribution.
 
Last edited:
KAJ said:
Not true.

By the way, the chi^2 analysis used by Damon et al. is not a chi^2 test in the common meaning of that phrase (Wikipedia), albeit it is an analysis yielding a statistic wih a chi^2 distribution.
Click to expand...
If we're being charitable it may be that @bobdroege7 simply doesn't know enough about probability and statistics to understand.
 
KAJ said:
Agreed. I was careful not to suggest that the untruth was intentional.
Click to expand...
I am somewhat less charitable, in general. There has been a definite amount of caring papers deceitfully,without bothering to examine them and actually look at what they actually say.
 
catsmate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember I did that calculation back in the Jabba days...

"How much modern carbon would need to be present in a sample to change the age from 2000 years old to 700 years old?"

You are correct, it was more than the original sample.
 
theprestige said:
Not to make trouble, but what's the debunking of the "blood sample" paper that bob alludes to?
Click to expand...
I've been digging around trying to get something solid on the blood samples thing, for both the shroud and the Sudarium. Not coming up with much, mostly just a lot of "no dude seriously, it's AB, just trust us".
 
Thermal said:
I've been digging around trying to get something solid on the blood samples thing, for both the shroud and the Sudarium. Not coming up with much, mostly just a lot of "no dude seriously, it's AB, just trust us".
Click to expand...
I have McCrone's paper around somewhere. It's old, '73, and a microscopic analysis rather than chemical, but it's good work.
 
catsmate said:
I have McCrone's paper around somewhere. It's old, '73, and a microscopic analysis rather than chemical, but it's good work.
Click to expand...
I found McCrones work. To my very layman's eye, it seems thorough and convincing. He found no blood, but vermillion on the claimed blood areas.

What I'm trying to find are substantial analyses on the alleged blood found that was typed AB, both on the Shroud and the doo rag Spanish Sudarium. Lots claims and assertions, not much steak.
 
For me the biggest problem with the Sudarium of Oviedo is that its authenticity is proposed in large measure by its purported similarity to the Turin Shroud. So when someone comes back and says we have to consider the shroud authentic because of its similarity to the sudarium, it's too circular for me.
 
The Sudarium also asserts that it was the head cloth used at the entombment, which seems directly at odds with the Shroud being authentic.
 
Thermal said:
The Sudarium also asserts that it was the head cloth used at the entombment, which seems directly at odds with the Shroud being authentic.
Click to expand...
When necessary to reconcile the sudarium to the shroud, the claim is that the sudarium was applied to Jesus' head while he was still on the cross, ostensibly while his body is being taken down. Then it was removed, and the shroud placed over the entire body including the face. This requires a lot of inventive history. Why, for example, would the undertakers have left a temporary sudarium in the tomb to be found the next day?

John 20:7 explains that the linens were removed, and specifically calls out the sudarium as being there, but set aside from the other garments. It specifically says it had been on Jesus' face. But of course exactly when that was the case is not expressly spelled out. However, John 11 includes the story of Lazarus raised from the dead. Lazarus spent zero time on a cross, but he still had a sudarium over his face in the tomb. In fact, he had to hobble his way blindly out of the tomb with the thing still on his head, because his hands were not free to remove it.

The answer to this riddle is easy. The early relic-collectors didn't pay too much attention to historical or logical consistency among the relics. It would have been entirely par for the course to venerate the Sudarium of Oviedo for hundreds of years as the biblically accurate sudarium of Jesus, and then have to invent a bunch of nonsense with the shroud came about and the two got together.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I found McCrones work. To my very layman's eye, it seems thorough and convincing. He found no blood, but vermillion on the claimed blood areas.

What I'm trying to find are substantial analyses on the alleged blood found that was typed AB, both on the Shroud and the doo rag Spanish Sudarium. Lots claims and assertions, not much steak.
Click to expand...
Honestly, while he's obviously based and I have issues with his work, Kelly Kearse's analyses aren't bad. You can taste the desperate need to believe but it usually doesn't quote over-ride his scientific objectivity. Though you do get nonsense like this:
the assertion could be made on theological grounds that type O (the universal donor) might be the most fitting as Christ freely shed his blood for all mankind, whomever will accept him.
Click to expand...
There is the problem that the analysed material has never been reasonably shown to be blood, and therefore testing isn't likely to be accurate.
There are plenty of tests that show false positives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom