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

[Pacal]

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".

I suggest you look at Walter C. McCrone's book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1999, there is a fair amount in the book about the "blood" on the shroud. Pages 162-166 are very interesting in this regard.

For Example:

"They [The STURP people.] believe the "blood" is blood because they find calcium and iron. Bu, they found no potassium, an even larger component of blood. A standard sample of blood in The Particle Atlas (McCrone et al. 1992) shows a strong potassium peak. Blood 48 parts per million (ppm) of calcium, 512 ppm of iron but 1586 ppm of potassium. Figures 65 and 66 (pp. 163, 164) show the elemental analyses of real blood and red ochre "blood" on the shroud. The potassium (K) peak in figure 65 is obvious as one of the strongest. The potassium peak is absent in STURP's X-ray fluorescence pattern taken of the shroud side wound image. Therefore, this did not prove blood to be present, quite the contrary." (p. 162)

Figure 65:


(p. 163)

Figure 66:


(p. 164)

 

[Thermal]

I suggest you look at Walter C. McCrone's book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1999, there is a fair amount in the book about the "blood" on the shroud. Pages 162-166 are very interesting in this regard.

For Example:

"They [The STURP people.] believe the "blood" is blood because they find calcium and iron. Bu, they found no potassium, an even larger component of blood. A standard sample of blood in The Particle Atlas (McCrone et al. 1992) shows a strong potassium peak. Blood 48 parts per million (ppm) of calcium, 512 ppm of iron but 1586 ppm of potassium. Figures 65 and 66 (pp. 163, 164) show the elemental analyses of real blood and red ochre "blood" on the shroud. The potassium (K) peak in figure 65 is obvious as one of the strongest. The potassium peak is absent in STURP's X-ray fluorescence pattern taken of the shroud side wound image. Therefore, this did not prove blood to be present, quite the contrary." (p. 162)

Figure 65:

View attachment 58976
(p. 163)

Figure 66:

View attachment 58977
(p. 164)

Thanks. I have seen McCrone's work online, both his older and more recent. What I am looking for is a fair shake on the "pro blood" POV, not to be converted, but just to understand their argument and why they find it so persuasive.

For instance, McCrone criticizes the lack of potassium that would be expected in blood residue. But as a layman with inconsequential knowledge of the field, I don't know what residues and in what proportions we would expect to find centuries later, after having been in a fire hot enough to melt silver.

Eta: maybe put better: I don't know if finding calcium, iron, and potassium indicates blood any more than it would certain pigments or paints. The blood advocates claim to have enough evidence to actually type the blood, which seems like would need far more evidence than iron and calcium?

 

[acbytesla]

I find that the idea that the shroud of Turin is Jesus Christ's burial cloth as ridiculous as Noah's Ark. Do we know of other burial clothes that created an image of the person that was wrapped within it? The very thing that makes believers come to conclusion it must have been Jesus's is the same reason I find it suspect. That is the thorns on it. Why would anyone handling a body want to deal with the thorns?

And why would there be an image on it? Are there other burial clothes with a transfered image of the deceased? I strongly believe that this is just one of the many frauds perpetrated by the church.

 

[catsmate]

I find that the idea that the shroud of Turin is Jesus Christ's burial cloth as ridiculous as Noah's Ark. Do we know of other burial clothes that created an image of the person that was wrapped within it? The very thing that makes believers come to conclusion it must have been Jesus's is the same reason I find it suspect. That is the thorns on it. Why would anyone handling a body want to deal with the thorns?

And why would there be an image on it? Are there other burial clothes with a transfered image of the deceased? I strongly believe that this is just one of the many frauds perpetrated by the church.

Exactly. The relic craze started early, it was condemned by Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, and the history of xianity is littered with dubious objects.


Ellis Peters' novel A Morbid Taste for Bones is an excellent example of the medieval importance of relics to religious institutions. Pilgrims mean money.

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

I'm happy I read all the way through to post 579 before adding my thoughts, because this is very close to what I was going to say. The shroud of Turin does not match with the biblical description of the burial, where the sundarium was found separate from the rest of the shroud wrappings.

So either the Holy Bible, considered by devout Christians to be correct, got it wrong, or the shroud is a fake. You can't have it both ways.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly. The relic craze started early, it was condemned by Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, and the history of xianity is littered with dubious objects.

Ellis Peters' novel A Morbid Taste for Bones is an excellent example of the medieval importance of relics to religious institutions. Pilgrims mean money.

Anything to make the story real. Things like the shroud of Turin keeps people talking about all this as if it happened. I mean how many times has someone supposedly found Noah's Ark. Which I find hands down, to be easily the most ridiculous story in the Bible. But the zombie story of all the dead of Jerusalem getting out of their graves and walking the streets damn ridiculous as well.

I watch a lot of the atheist call in shows and it's amazing just how so many believers will argue there is real evidence supporting the supernatural stories in the Bible. But every time the so called evidence is either non-existent or incredibly weak. My answer whenever a Christian asks me why I don't believe is the same. I don't find the stories believable. Talking snakes, donkeys, bushes and trees is something I've never encountered or have been shown any credible evidence for.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Except the cloth's weave is not-at-all similar to the herringbone of the shroud.
A herringbone pattern that was, despite @bobdroege7's assertions, not used in the first century Middle East.

The Sudarium also asserts that it was the head cloth used at the entombment, which seems directly at odds with the Shroud being authentic.

Yes I made that point, but to no response.

 

[Thermal]

Except the cloth's weave is not-at-all similar to the herringbone of the shroud.
A herringbone pattern that was, despite @bobdroege7's assertions, not used in the first century Middle East.

Yes I made that point, but to no response.

Looking at the various Catholic websites which claim authority on the things, they seem to concur that a Sudarium would have been put on a dead man's head immediately after death. They say this was an established Jewish practice but I dunno anything about that, although it makes sense. We cover the faces of dead people even today.

But they go on to say there is a distinctive blood trickle on the Sudarium that matches with an identical trickle on the shroud. That's not even internally consistent. The face would have been washed and anointed with aloe and myrrh (as the shroud site adamantly claims they both were), so any random trickle patterns would not be on the shroud at all.

 

[I Am The Scum]

But they go on to say there is a distinctive blood trickle on the Sudarium that matches with an identical trickle on the shroud. That's not even internally consistent. The face would have been washed and anointed with aloe and myrrh (as the shroud site adamantly claims they both were), so any random trickle patterns would not be on the shroud at all.

So you're saying it's another miracle? Interesting...

 

[bobdroege7]

There is no such thing as 'Dunning Kruger disease', you made that up out of whole cloth.

Speaking of whole cloth, 1st century jewish burial rites did not include draping a sheet over the body, rather the body would be wrapped in strips of cloth. As you have been told over and over again. As you have ignored over and over again.

You claim (if I understand you correctly) that the body that was wrapped in this cloth was Jesus, but not Christ, and was not dead.

OK, I'm on board with Jesus, if he existed (which I am unconvinced of, but that is a matter for a different thread [no pun intended]) not being the son of God. Thing is, I don't believe that any body, living or dead, left any image on this cloth.

There have been times when I have not changed my bedding as often as I should have, and marks/stains have been left on the fabric. Never have they been anything like the image on this cloth.

If what you claim is true then people would constantly be trying to wash portraits of themselves out of sheets, towels and flannels - but they aren't, are they? When was the last time you had to scrub an image of your face off your pillow case?

I did not say I had Dunning Druger disease, read my post more carefully.

 

[bobdroege7]

Right......

Well, I don't believe anything you post either.

 

[bobdroege7]

Is two million people, around one percent of the population of the planet at the time, a reasonable estimate?

The estimate was 50,000 to 2 million, not 2 million.

What part of that do you have comprehension problems with?

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

OK, but the chi^2 analysis by Damon et al still fails as it is too high.

 

[Thermal]

@bobdroege7 :

I'm really trying to figure out why you are accepting some elements of the Shroud and Sudarium's history as authentic, and dismissing others. I mean, you're no dummy. Something is very persuasive to you, and I am not trying to debunk what you are saying. I'd like to understand your POV.

I don't find anything at all about the Shroud to be persuasive. The "doo-rag" I'm a little more on the fence about. It's entirely plausible that it could have been handed straight down since they drug down the historical Jesus, any supernatural claims entirely aside, but the radiocarbon dating makes that difficult.

 

[bobdroege7]

OK, here are the problems I have with the Damon et al paper.

The samples were not random, they were all taken from the same location on the shroud.

The chi^2 test showed heterogeneity with the shroud samples, much higher than the chi^2 tests for the controls.

X 2 value (2 d.f.) from the Damon paper is too high, see table

There was no transparency with respect to the packaging of the samples.

 

[Darat]

I did not say I had Dunning Druger disease, read my post more carefully.

Glad you can laugh at yourself - it's often hard to do.

 

[KAJ]

OK, but the chi^2 analysis by Damon et al still fails as it is too high.

Are you going to respond to the previous sentence in my post where I said your statement that I had "not addressed the issue with the results of the radiocarbon paper with respect to homogeneity" was not true?

And what do you mean by "fails as it is too high"? What is the limit you think has been exceeded, and how did you arrive at that limit (please don't try to get away with a p<0.05 limit)? Have you considered my comments that:

...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"....

...samples and labs are inextricably confounded, it isn't possible to distinguish sample effects from lab effects...

 

[bobdroege7]

I'm happy I read all the way through to post 579 before adding my thoughts, because this is very close to what I was going to say. The shroud of Turin does not match with the biblical description of the burial, where the sundarium was found separate from the rest of the shroud wrappings.

So either the Holy Bible, considered by devout Christians to be correct, got it wrong, or the shroud is a fake. You can't have it both ways.

The bible is certainly not correct, for one it contradicts itself on the matter of how Judas died. The New Testament is entirely written by non witnesses of the events of the 1st century. But it does give details consistent with the image on the shroud.

Still waiting for a medieval painting of the crucifixion with the nails through the wrists.

Science is never 100%, but I find the evidence favors the shroud being older than the radiocarbon dates.

It could still be a fake, but it would be the most detailed fake ever produced.

No way it is a painting.

 

[bobdroege7]

Are you going to respond to the previous sentence in my post where I said your statement that I had "not addressed the issue with the results of the radiocarbon paper with respect to homogeneity" was not true?

And what do you mean by "fails as it is too high"? What is the limit you think has been exceeded, and how did you arrive at that limit (please don't try to get away with a p<0.05 limit)? Have you considered my comments that:

Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud. A Critical Statistical Analysis.

"The British Museum, selected the Chi^2 to be the criterion for the assessment of the radiocarbon dating results for the Shroud. The MAXIMUM Chi^2 test value for 95% confidence and (3-1) degrees of freedom is 5.99. Theoretically, if the calculated Chi^2 test value could have occurred only by chance, with a probability LESS than that selected, then the set of data would be considered as being DIFFERENT. In practice : Any Chi^2 test value LARGER than 5.99, excludes the claimed 95 % confidence."

That's where I got that, and it's true that you did not address that.

 

[bobdroege7]

Glad you can laugh at yourself - it's often hard to do.

Well, I recently retired, I don't take myself so seriously anymore.