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

[Pacal]

Hedler and Alder disagree with McCrone.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical%20Investigation%20%20Heller%20Adler%201981%20OCR.pdf

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.

Being "refuted" by Heller and Alder wouldn't bother McCrone at all. Why? Well because they didn't refute him to begin with. His opinion of Heller and Adler is very low.

Regarding Heller and Adler's x-ray fluorescence work McCrone says:

"These incredible suggestions [By Heller and Alder] show how they do struggle to avoid the obvious explanation and source of the red image - artist pigments." (Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin, p. 166)

On the same page McCrone refers to Heller and Adler's work has: "This I find incomprehensible nonsense".

It seems Heller and Alder were in fact debunked. But then they apparently became true believers.

On page 171 McCrone says:

"I gave up arguing with STURP in 1980. I found their intransigence and lack of understanding of the true nature of this image and their stubborn lack of objectivity affected my digestion."

"It seemed best to go my own way and try to ignore their efforts to prove the "Shroud" to be authentic at all costs. They remain to this day (1996), resolute in their faith that the "Shroud" is the real Shroud of Christ's crucifixion."

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

Re the highlighted: No. Just no. The area of the shroud selected for the carbon-14 analysis was very carefully selected by experts to guard against this very problem. Claiming it's from a repaired area is a non-starter.

 

[junkshop]

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.

Fair point. Unfortunately the highlighted section rather scuppers your claim that the samples were from a repaired area, doesn't it?

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

No, they don't.

You are 0 for 3, better head to the bench.

 

[Mojo]

Because the sampling was not random, all the samples came from the same area of the shroud.

"Oh no, my Lord, I assure you! Parts of it are excellent!"

 

[catsmate]

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.

You're trying to integrate facts with shroudie beliefs, that way lies madness.

 

[catsmate]

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

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

What part of that do you have comprehension problems with?

They part where anyone took an estimate of two million people seriously.

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

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.

So what? The sample are was examined in advance, judged to be appropriate and cut.
You're not-picking to justify your irrational dismissal of the radiocarbon dating.

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.

More attempts at evasion of reality.

 

[catsmate]

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

Why? Despite the assertions by various shroudies the cloth does not show nails through the wrists. The alleged 'wrist' wounds are actually through the ‘palm’ of the hand rather than the ‘wrist’. In fact Frary showed years ago that the nail was between the metacarpals, not among the carpals.

For those interested in actual research regarding crucifixion:

https://www.leidenartsinsocietyblog.nl/articles/the-crux-of-the-matter-the-truths-and-fictions-of-crucifixions

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

No this is just silly. The abundant evidence shows clearly the shroud was created in the middle ages.
You have, again, failed to address such matters as the paper trail showing it was fake (d'Arcis et al), the degradation in colouring, the physiological issues, the lack fo similar textiles during the alleged crucifixion period, the similarity (cultural and artistic) with other works of the period, et cetera.

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

Not even close.

No way it is a painting.

Of course not..........

 

[catsmate]

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.

Sigh. Not this drivel by Van Haelst again..
First Van Haelst, who was an industrial chemist decides to use an analytic technique invented by himself, rather than standard methodologies, and rejects the dating of 1260 – 1390....
In favour of a dating of 1220 -1420.
So much for a first century relic.

@bobdroege7, you might try reading the material you uncover before posting it. It'd help prevent you looking like an idiot.,

 

[catsmate]

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.

Oh much higher. Probably at least ten times higher.

 

[catsmate]

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical%20Investigation%20%20Heller%20Adler%201981%20OCR.pdf

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.

Oh good grief, Adler and Heller again. That drivel was debunked long, long ago. By McCrone for a start.

Finally there are their alleged "tests". Now even H&A were forced to admit that no chemical testing showed any direct evidence of blood on the cloth, so they had to resort to attempting to identify biochemical derivatives of blood. Such testing isn't even presumptive gives that such tests react to other materials. Given that there is little dispute that there is protein matter on the cloth (McCrone noted this) such testing has no value.

In fact Heller and Adler screwed up rather badly; they attempted to demonstrate that there was no protein on the image fibres (so as to justify their insistence on the presence of blood). Unfortunately they got a positive Amido Black test result from the those areas, showing the prosence of protein. McCrone, unsurprisingly, got the same result. H&A then attempted to pass this off by claiming that Amido Black also stains cellulose, and therefore was not diagnostic for protein. McCrone tore this apart in his book, complete with photos.

That's why Kearse, whom @bobdroege7 was so convinced had found blood on the cloth just a day ago, was forced to admit that was no evidence of it.

Another annoyance for shroudies who believe in blood (bloodies?) the supposed test results of shrodies, like Heller and Adler, Pellicori and the Gilberts are mutually contradictory.

The evidence of Heller and Adler is dependent on observations of the shroud that Eugenia Nitowski, our old friend Sister Damian of the Cross, (remember her?), was unable to confirm when she examined the same material.

Curiously none of Heller and Adler’s micrographs have been published......

Oh, and a couple of final points to save @bobdroege7 some googling; no H&A did not detect bilirubin. And why are the supposed blood particles still red, when blood degrades quickly?

 

[catsmate]

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical%20Investigation%20%20Heller%20Adler%201981%20OCR.pdf

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.

Oh good grief, Adler and Heller again. That drivel was debunked long, long ago. By McCrone for a start.

Finally there are their alleged "tests". Now even H&A were forced to admit that no chemical testing showed any direct evidence of blood on the cloth, so they had to resort to attempting to identify biochemical derivatives of blood. Such testing isn't even presumptive gives that such tests react to other materials. Given that there is little dispute that there is protein matter on the cloth (McCrone noted this) such testing has no value.

In fact Heller and Adler screwed up rather badly; they attempted to demonstrate that there was no protein on the image fibres (so as to justify their insistence on the presence of blood). Unfortunately they got a positive Amido Black test result from the those areas, showing the prosence of protein. McCrone, unsurprisingly, got the same result. H&A then attempted to pass this off by claiming that Amido Black also stains cellulose, and therefore was not diagnostic for protein. McCrone tore this apart in his book, complete with photos.

That's why Kearse, whom @bobdroege7 was so convinced had found blood on the cloth just a day ago, was forced to admit that was no evidence of it.

Another annoyance for shroudies who believe in blood (bloodies?) the supposed test results of shrodies, like Heller and Adler, Pellicori and the Gilberts are mutually contradictory.

The evidence of Heller and Adler is dependent on observations of the shroud that Eugenia Nitowski, our old friend Sister Damian of the Cross, (remember her?), was unable to confirm when she examined the same material.

Curiously none of Heller and Adler’s micrographs have been published......

Oh, and a couple of final points to save @bobdroege7 some googling; no H&A did not detect bilirubin. And why are the supposed blood particles still red, when blood degrades quickly?

 

[catsmate]

Because the sampling was not random, all the samples came from the same area of the shroud.

Yes? So what?

Testing shows it to be inhomogeneous.

Are you going to support this claim of your with evidence?

It was taken from a repaired area.

Absolute and utter shroudie lie.
There was extensive discussion about the sample area and examination of the shroud by textile experts (not 'testicle' experts as the auto-correct suggests for some reason) such as Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who looked for patching and repairs both visually and microscopically

The shroud has history before the date where it was claimed to have appeared.

Nope. This is also untrue.

 

[catsmate]

Hedler and Alder disagree with McCrone.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical%20Investigation%20%20Heller%20Adler%201981%20OCR.pdf

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.

Sigh, more desperate shroudie lies and evasion.

 

[catsmate]

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?

Mmmm, if we can get off the shroudie obsession with the Turin cloth being genuine and on to it's origins, I suspect it was created as a prop for a mystery play and the monks got greedy when people starting thinking it was real, hence the episcopal intervention.

 

[Thermal]

Oh much higher. Probably at least ten times higher.

That was my assumption, an order of magnitude more Crusades deaths in toto. But I realized I didn't know much about the total amount of people crucified by the Empire, so I googled it, and estimates are as high as 2 million. The low estimate of people killed in the Crusades was 1,7 million. So while I'm inclined to think the Crusades racked up exponentially more bodies, I can't say so with confidence.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

At best, that shows that the test itself was not reliable. It does not show any other specific century is therefore justified.

 

[catsmate]

At best, that shows that the test itself was not reliable. It does not show any other specific century is therefore justified.

Not does it effect all the other evidence for a medieval origin.

 

[JayUtah]

Not does it effect all the other evidence for a medieval origin.

The principle of consilience applies here. Any weakness in one particular outcome or test methdology does not wag the dog. Given all the evidence for a medieval origin, the proper way to interpret ambiguity in one test result is not to suggest that such an outcome overturns the entire picture of evidence.

 

[catsmate]

The principle of consilience applies here. Any weakness in one particular outcome or test methdology does not wag the dog. Given all the evidence for a medieval origin, the proper way to interpret ambiguity in one test result is not to suggest that such an outcome overturns the entire picture of evidence.

But that is not the conspiratorial way.

 

[bobdroege7]

Re the highlighted: No. Just no. The area of the shroud selected for the carbon-14 analysis was very carefully selected by experts to guard against this very problem. Claiming it's from a repaired area is a non-starter.

Yes? So what?

Are you going to support this claim of your with evidence?

Absolute and utter shroudie lie.
There was extensive discussion about the sample area and examination of the shroud by textile experts (not 'testicle' experts as the auto-correct suggests for some reason) such as Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who looked for patching and repairs both visually and microscopically

Nope. This is also untrue.

The samples were taken from the shroud right next to the previous Raes sample, which was found to contain cotton.

I have already provided evidence that the shroud samples were not homogeneous.

The shroud is made of linen, not cotton.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerppt.pdf