• 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:
@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.
Click to expand...

I have no use for Catholics, other denominations not so much.

Archbishops are good for pulling coins out of toddlers' ears, and other things.

Which is higher, the number of people the Romans crucified, or the number of people who died in the crusades?

That's where I am coming from.

And I don't believe in miracles, only miracle whip.

And neutron flux at the moment of resurrection producing the image, not remotely possible.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I have no use for Catholics, other denominations not so much.

Archbishops are good for pulling coins out of toddlers' ears, and other things.
Click to expand...
OK, great.
bobdroege7 said:
Which is higher, the number of people the Romans crucified, or the number of people who died in the crusades?
Click to expand...
Total Crusade fatalities, I would think, but estimates vary. But I think you may have me confused with someone else? I have no issue there.
bobdroege7 said:
That's where I am coming from.

And I don't believe in miracles, only miracle whip.

And neutron flux at the moment of resurrection producing the image, not remotely possible.
Click to expand...
OK, but you argue that the image on the shroud was neither painted on, nor supernatural. There is no known or even hypothesized reaction of a living or dead person that would generate such an image, sooooo.... ?

You cite evidence from both cloths as if they should be taken as genuine, if not of a supernatural origin. So does this mean you think this was the historical Jesus, but not divine, consistent with (as alluded upthread) the teachings of Islam?

Is the blood typing significant, or 'right' as you said? Are we sure that blood was even found? by who's authority?

Not trying to theologically pin you down man, but it is a little confusing to reconcile your assertions, which often seem at odds with each other.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I did not say I had Dunning Druger disease, read my post more carefully.
Click to expand...

Please read your own post more carefully. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you:

bobdroege7 said:
1st century practice was to inter the body in a tomb, and later, after about a year put the bones in a box. So what part contradicts Jewish burial practice?

Yes, it's the Dunning Druger effect, but that does not preclude someone from saying I have Dunning Kruger disease. And it does not affect everyone. Just those who get out over their skis.

Claiming the shroud is a painting is an example of getting out over your skis.

Or jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Also please note: I didn't say that you said that you had Dunning Kruger disease, I said that there was no such thing as Dunning Kruger disease.

Read my post more carefully.
 
Thermal said:
OK, great.

Total Crusade fatalities, I would think, but estimates vary. But I think you may have me confused with someone else? I have no issue there.

OK, but you argue that the image on the shroud was neither painted on, nor supernatural. There is no known or even hypothesized reaction of a living or dead person that would generate such an image, sooooo.... ?

You cite evidence from both cloths as if they should be taken as genuine, if not of a supernatural origin. So does this mean you think this was the historical Jesus, but not divine, consistent with (as alluded upthread) the teachings of Islam?

Is the blood typing significant, or 'right' as you said? Are we sure that blood was even found? by who's authority?

Not trying to theologically pin you down man, but it is a little confusing to reconcile your assertions, which often seem at odds with each other.
Click to expand...

That source addresses both the blood stains and the painting hypothesis. That source predates the carbon dating paper.

It might be the historical Jesus or just an unknown crucified man, I am open to evidence either way, there is evidence for both.
 
bobdroege7 said:

"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.
Click to expand...
It's true I didn't address that, at the time you hadn't cited it and my mind reading skills are limited!

Your statement that I had "not addressed the issue with the results of the radiocarbon paper with respect to homogeneity" was not true - trying to pretend that it was looks like intentional untruth.

My consideration of the newly introduced somewhat "flaky" document will have to wait until I have more time. I note that a 2002 version of that document <link> runs to 47 pages.
 
junkshop said:
Please read your own post more carefully. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you:



Also please note: I didn't say that you said that you had Dunning Kruger disease, I said that there was no such thing as Dunning Kruger disease.

Read my post more carefully.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I agreed with you, read my posts more carefully.

Yes, you can quote me saying " I have Dunning Kruger disease." but that would be taking what I said out of context.
 
bobdroege7 said:

That source addresses both the blood stains and the painting hypothesis. That source predates the carbon dating paper.

It might be the historical Jesus or just an unknown crucified man, I am open to evidence either way, there is evidence for both.
Click to expand...
So what? I simply do not trust the testing. Everything about this is fishy. While I can believe that a person named Yeshua/Jesus was crucified in the first century, everything else is suspect. I don't believe in miracles. The shroud would be a miracle to somehow give credence to another miracle. And not a single miracle in history has ever been proven to happen.

Christianity is a multi-trillion dollar industry that gives power and wealth to a few. There is great interest by that few to keep the con going and somehow believable. I watched every day the tobacco industry spend millions to spread doubt to the health detriments of their product. The fossil fuel industry doing the same with climate science.
 
bobdroege7 said:

That source addresses both the blood stains and the painting hypothesis. That source predates the carbon dating paper.

It might be the historical Jesus or just an unknown crucified man, I am open to evidence either way, there is evidence for both.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what is persuading you that the shroud is 2000 years old? Why are you completely throwing out the radio carbon dating?
 
zooterkin said:
Sorry, what is persuading you that the shroud is 2000 years old? Why are you completely throwing out the radio carbon dating?
Click to expand...
Because the sampling was not random, all the samples came from the same area of the shroud.
Testing shows it to be inhomogeneous. It was taken from a repaired area.
The shroud has history before the date where it was claimed to have appeared.
 
Regarding finding blood on the shroud of Turin the following from Walter McCrone's book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus Books, 1999) should be of interest:

"There is a very simple optical test that differentiates blood from red ochre or vermilion - the Becke line test for refractive index. Blood or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices of less than 1.60. Red ochre and vermilion have indices nearly double that of blood, or nearly 3.0."

Later:

"There are two types of red particles on the shroud tapes: single particles of red ochre (iron oxide) or vermilion (mercuric sulfide) and agglomerates of both pigments in transparent gelatin (collagen tempera) matrix." (pp. 166-167)

McCrone concludes that the tests he did indicate red ochre and vermilion and not blood.

And may I point out that the gelatin / collagen tempera is the source of the alleged finding of "blood".
 
bobdroege7 said:
Because the sampling was not random, all the samples came from the same area of the shroud.
Testing shows it to be inhomogeneous. It was taken from a repaired area.
The shroud has history before the date where it was claimed to have appeared.
Click to expand...
It's all been dealt with before. Saying it again doesn't make it so.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Because the sampling was not random, all the samples came from the same area of the shroud.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide convincing evidence of this.

bobdroege7 said:
Testing shows it to be inhomogeneous. It was taken from a repaired area.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide convincing evidence of this.

bobdroege7 said:
The shroud has history before the date where it was claimed to have appeared.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide evidence that the Turin shroud is the same one as that refered to earlier.

Also: by what proccess do you hold that the image of a living, not Christ, maybe Jesus was transferred to this cloth?

This has been asked a few times, and there has not yet been a responsive answer given.
 
Pacal said:
Regarding finding blood on the shroud of Turin the following from Walter McCrone's book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus Books, 1999) should be of interest:

"There is a very simple optical test that differentiates blood from red ochre or vermilion - the Becke line test for refractive index. Blood or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices of less than 1.60. Red ochre and vermilion have indices nearly double that of blood, or nearly 3.0."

Later:

"There are two types of red particles on the shroud tapes: single particles of red ochre (iron oxide) or vermilion (mercuric sulfide) and agglomerates of both pigments in transparent gelatin (collagen tempera) matrix." (pp. 166-167)

McCrone concludes that the tests he did indicate red ochre and vermilion and not blood.

And may I point out that the gelatin / collagen tempera is the source of the alleged finding of "blood".
Click to expand...
That's the stuff. Thanks for isolating that data, it's exactly the thing I was wondering about.
 
junkshop said:
You have yet to provide convincing evidence of this.


You have yet to provide convincing evidence of this.


You have yet to provide evidence that the Turin shroud is the same one as that refered to earlier.

Also: by what proccess do you hold that the image of a living, not Christ, maybe Jesus was transferred to this cloth?

This has been asked a few times, and there has not yet been a responsive answer given.
Click to expand...
Yes I have, I have posted the original Damon paper.

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

"The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. "

You are wrong on the first point.

Repairs are addressed here https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerppt.pdf

The pattern of holes on the shroud and the Pray Codex match, indicating that they are of the same thing.

You are 0 for 3, better head to the bench.
 
Pacal said:
Regarding finding blood on the shroud of Turin the following from Walter McCrone's book Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin (Prometheus Books, 1999) should be of interest:

"There is a very simple optical test that differentiates blood from red ochre or vermilion - the Becke line test for refractive index. Blood or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices of less than 1.60. Red ochre and vermilion have indices nearly double that of blood, or nearly 3.0."

Later:

"There are two types of red particles on the shroud tapes: single particles of red ochre (iron oxide) or vermilion (mercuric sulfide) and agglomerates of both pigments in transparent gelatin (collagen tempera) matrix." (pp. 166-167)

McCrone concludes that the tests he did indicate red ochre and vermilion and not blood.

And may I point out that the gelatin / collagen tempera is the source of the alleged finding of "blood".
Click to expand...
Hedler and Alder disagree with McCrone.


Also, if there was pigment in the form of ochre or vermillion, there would be impurities associated with pigment.

"The results of these metal tests are in agreement with the general conclusion> reached by X-ray fluoresccnce(l3) which found only ill Ca, Fe and Sr on the Shroud above truce levels. However, the chemical tesiing allows us 10 be much more specific in the assignment of actual structures of the metallic compounds present. These results do not support the hypothesis that the image is painted with inorganic pigments."

Sorry for the formatting but McCrone was debunked before the shroud was dated.
 
KAJ said:
It's true I didn't address that, at the time you hadn't cited it and my mind reading skills are limited!

Your statement that I had "not addressed the issue with the results of the radiocarbon paper with respect to homogeneity" was not true - trying to pretend that it was looks like intentional untruth.

My consideration of the newly introduced somewhat "flaky" document will have to wait until I have more time. I note that a 2002 version of that document <link> runs to 47 pages.
Click to expand...

Nice link, I can't cut and paste, but the middle of the third page.

So it wasn't the Cardinal in the Study with the Typewriter.
 
It just has to be authentic. The Catholic church has committed countless frauds over the centuries. Does anyone besides Bob think that this was not another of those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom