• 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?"

acbytesla said:
I'm not sure the fact that he hasn't doesn't mean herringbone woven cloth wasn't in use. We know that herringbone woven cloth existed hundreds of years before the time of Jesus. We also know that cloth doesn't necessarily preserve very well. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe for a second that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. I'm just unconvinced that we can say that such a weave is impossible or even unlikely to be available in first century Palestine.
Click to expand...
The distinctive weave of the shroud cloth has no exemplars in the first century Middle East.
 
I Am The Scum said:
What on earth is a "near-invisible patch?" Is that what the emperor's new clothes were made from?
Click to expand...
Oh great, you are going to make me answer this?

Imagine a patch to cover a hole in a cloth. Now, you might be imagining something like a sewed on patch on the knees of your jeans, but no, it's not that.

What you have to do is to have a hole, and the patch exactly matches the size of the hole. Now, to put it in as a patch, you have to take the edges of the patch and seamlessly merge them to the edge of the whole. Kind of like hair extensions, but it's all undetectable. The color and weave of the patch in 1300CE exactly matches the color and weave of 1300 year old material in the shroud. So the only way you can tell that it is a patch is to do a chemical analysis, and, in particular, 14C dating. Because that patch will date to 1300CE and not 30CE, whereas the rest of the shroud would all date to 30CE.

Of course, this is a very special invisible patch, because it's unique. See, the shroud is known to have been patched many times, and, in fact, those patches are completely obvious. They are sewn on patches of cloth, exactly like you'd expect from a bunch of seamstress nuns patching holes in cloth. But that's not this patch, no. The patch isn't like any of those other obvious patches, and is completely invisible.

Don't mind the fact that this type of patching/repair is not even technologically available today, but they knew how to do it 700 years ago and it has been forgotten.

You think I'm making this up. But that is what Jabba claimed.
 
pgwenthold said:
I may have missed it, but what is the basis for this claim?
Click to expand...
Desperation, obviously.

pgwenthold said:
Certainly, the patched areas are well known and obvious. Although I seem to recall some claim somewhere that the "patch" was an invisible patch that looked exactly like the shroud, and, in fact, you couldn't even tell the shroud had been repaired. You can't be so stupid to be claiming that kind of crap, can you?
Click to expand...
You can. The spot on the shroud must "obviously" be an invisible patch, because it dates to the "wrong" time. Duh.
 
pgwenthold said:
Oh great, you are going to make me answer this?

Imagine a patch to cover a hole in a cloth. Now, you might be imagining something like a sewed on patch on the knees of your jeans, but no, it's not that.

What you have to do is to have a hole, and the patch exactly matches the size of the hole. Now, to put it in as a patch, you have to take the edges of the patch and seamlessly merge them to the edge of the whole. Kind of like hair extensions, but it's all undetectable. The color and weave of the patch in 1300CE exactly matches the color and weave of 1300 year old material in the shroud. So the only way you can tell that it is a patch is to do a chemical analysis, and, in particular, 14C dating. Because that patch will date to 1300CE and not 30CE, whereas the rest of the shroud would all date to 30CE.

Of course, this is a very special invisible patch, because it's unique. See, the shroud is known to have been patched many times, and, in fact, those patches are completely obvious. They are sewn on patches of cloth, exactly like you'd expect from a bunch of seamstress nuns patching holes in cloth. But that's not this patch, no. The patch isn't like any of those other obvious patches, and is completely invisible.

Don't mind the fact that this type of patching/repair is not even technologically available today, but they knew how to do it 700 years ago and it has been forgotten.

You think I'm making this up. But that is what Jabba claimed.
Click to expand...
That makes it a lot more clear (in a twisted way). I was reading "patch" to mean a small section of cloth, as though the scientists were testing cloth they literally could not see, as opposed to the union between a new and old section of cloth.

At a certain point, one must maintain a bizarre balancing act of arguing that God's miracles are at work with the manufacturing of the shroud image, but the big man is mysteriously negligent when the scientists are in the room.
 
catsmate said:
Yep, Savage repetitively claimed there was an "invisible patch" conveniently in the area sampled. Despite the expert examination....
Bollocks of course, but @bobdroege7 needs something to justify rejecting the radiocarbon dating, be it magic god emergy, contamination, invisible patches or fraud.
Click to expand...

All of the patches are not invisible, but you do have to examine the samples.

When you do that, you find cotton threads.

"Upon microscopic examination of the Oxford C-14 sample, Professor Edward Hall,head of the Oxford lab, noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory inDerbyshire determined that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.”According to Peter South of the lab, “It may have been used for repairs at some time inthe past…” (Rogue Fibres found in the Shroud, 1988:13)."

From https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf

"magic god emergy, contamination, invisible patches or fraud."

None of those, but failing the Chi^2 test and visible cotton fibers in the Oxford sample.

Yes, I do have plenty of evidence to reject the carbon dating.
 
bobdroege7 said:
All of the patches are not invisible, but you do have to examine the samples.

When you do that, you find cotton threads.

"Upon microscopic examination of the Oxford C-14 sample, Professor Edward Hall,head of the Oxford lab, noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory inDerbyshire determined that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.”According to Peter South of the lab, “It may have been used for repairs at some time inthe past…” (Rogue Fibres found in the Shroud, 1988:13)."

From https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf

"magic god emergy, contamination, invisible patches or fraud."

None of those, but failing the Chi^2 test and visible cotton fibers in the Oxford sample.

Yes, I do have plenty of evidence to reject the carbon dating.
Click to expand...
What's your hypothesis? That all three tests somehow managed to key off a trace cotton fiber, rather than the linen of the shroud itself?

How does this square with your idea that the tests fail your statistical standard? The tests can't accurately date a medieval patch material, and also be so inaccurate that no medieval date is acceptable to you.
 
Myriad said:
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something, but is the following not the case?

Say you have a Quantity To Be Measured (QTBM). The QTBM is a singular value, immutable at any particular time of measurement, like the number of jelly beans currently in some large container, or the current age of some centuries-old artifact. But it is not known apart from the measurements made. (You can't "open the jar and count.") The measurement process is subject to error, and the error in the measurement is characterized by a normal probability distribution.

Three separate independent measurements are taken at (for all practical purposes) the same time. Isn't the most probable result that two of the measurements will fall within one standard deviation (technically, within the standard error) of the actual QTBM, while the third will fall outside one and within two standard deviations of it? And (this is where I'm less certain, but I did some Monte Carlo tries and it seems to come out that way), is it not also the most probable result that two of the measurements will fall within one standard deviation of each other, while the third will be within two standard deviations of the other two?
Click to expand...
I've stopped responding to bobdroege7 because it seemed a waste of time, but here's some info others may find interesting. I think the concept you're looking for is "Uncertainty of Measurement" <Wikipedia> defined as a "parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand" which was one of my pre-retirement special interests. It was developed after the 1989 paper of Damon et al, but most of the concepts apply mutatis mutandis. What you're calling "one standard deviation (technically, ... standard error)" would be the standard uncertainty. That might be estimated as the precision standard deviation (including both repeatability and reproducibility), but is not limited to that. ISO 17025 - the standard against which many (most?) testing and calibration labs are accredited - requires assessment of measurement uncertainty, so I would expect most professional analysts to have some familiarity with it.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I do have plenty of evidence to reject the carbon dating.
Click to expand...
No, you don't.

But I get it. The idea that this fairy tale that you are so invested in is nothing more than that is unacceptable. If you have to come to grips with the idea that it is nothing but a giant fraud turns your idea of who you are and your cultural underpinnings upside down.
 
KAJ said:
I've stopped responding to bobdroege7 because it seemed a waste of time, but here's some info others may find interesting. I think the concept you're looking for is "Uncertainty of Measurement" <Wikipedia> defined as a "parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand" which was one of my pre-retirement special interests. It was developed after the 1989 paper of Damon et al, but most of the concepts apply mutatis mutandis. What you're calling "one standard deviation (technically, ... standard error)" would be the standard uncertainty. That might be estimated as the precision standard deviation (including both repeatability and reproducibility), but is not limited to that. ISO 17025 - the standard against which many (most?) testing and calibration labs are accredited - requires assessment of measurement uncertainty, so I would expect most professional analysts to have some familiarity with it.
Click to expand...
Alright, don't respond to me, but standard error and standard deviation are not the same thing.

www.statology.org

Standard Deviation vs. Standard Error: What's the Difference?

A simple explanation of the difference between the standard deviation and the standard error, including an example.
www.statology.org www.statology.org
 
theprestige said:
What's your hypothesis? That all three tests somehow managed to key off a trace cotton fiber, rather than the linen of the shroud itself?

How does this square with your idea that the tests fail your statistical standard? The tests can't accurately date a medieval patch material, and also be so inaccurate that no medieval date is acceptable to you.
Click to expand...

The trace cotton fiber indicates that the samples were from a repaired area of the shroud.

The hypothesis being if you have evidence of a patch, you don't know how much of the sample is patch and how much is original material, and that means the dating is unreliable.

If it passed the chi^2 test, I would accept the results.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The trace cotton fiber indicates that the samples were from a repaired area of the shroud.
The hypothesis being if you have evidence of a patch, you don't know how much of the sample is patch and how much is original material, and that means the dating is unreliable.

If it passed the chi^2 test, I would accept the results.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Assuming that there were in fact cotton fibers found, it means only one thing, that there were cotton fibers found. It says nothing about the source of the fibers.

For example, the should was handled by countless people over hundreds of years, both clergy and lay people. In all that time and with all those people is it impossible that some of them might have been wearing some cotton?
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
No it doesn't. Assuming that there were in fact cotton fibers found, it means only one thing, that there were cotton fibers found. It says nothing about the source of the fibers.

For example, the should was handled by countless people over hundreds of years, both clergy and lay people. In all that time and with all those people is it impossible that some of them might have been wearing some cotton?
Click to expand...
Maybe bob thinks the cotton fibers were woven into the linen, somehow.
 
You guys might want to read the sources I post rather than go off half-cocked.

Yes, the cotton fibers are woven into the shroud, at least that is what my source states.
 
bobdroege7 said:
You guys might want to read the sources I post rather than go off half-cocked.

Yes, the cotton fibers are woven into the shroud, at least that is what my source states.
Click to expand...

Yes cotton fibers were found and so was all sorts of other contaminants were found on the shroud. As McCrone states in Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin, p. 85:

"Since extraneous but rare particles may be of interest, I will list them: silk, wool ,linen and cotton fibers of various colors, wax splatters, bird feather fibers, rodent hairs, mica, limestone (calcite), quartz, aragonite, starch grains (corn and wheat), pollen...." the list goes on and on but also lists "... paint fragments (titanium white, ultramarine, yellow ochre),..."

For the carbon 14 tests they went to great lengths to remove the contamination least it screw up the results. Oh and I seriously doubt they would not have noticed carbon fibers woven into the samples they collected for testing.

I note that in order for the cotton fibers supposedly woven into the samples taken to have twisted the carbon 14 results to c. 600-800 years from c. 1900 years the cotton fibers would have had to have been c. 2/3rds of each of the samples. Just how would they have missed that?

There is of course zero evidence that such a thing happened.
 
This idea that any layman can think of problems and objections which never occurred to experts is one I came across all the time when I was arguing with climate change deniers. Yes of course the textile expert who selected the sample made sure it wasn't taken from a patched area. Yes of course the scientists in all three labs carefully and thoroughly cleaned the piece of dirty cloth they were given before they carbon dated it. Because they're not morons. These are highly qualified and experienced professionals who know how to do their flipping jobs.
 
arthwollipot said:
Are we seriously seeing the claim that Jesus had type AB blood, therefore the shroud is genuine?
Click to expand...
No what we're hearing is bobdroege asserting without evidence that AB type blood was found on the shroud, and that as it was "found" it must be the "right" blood therefore it truly depicts Jesus. Huge gaps in his logic as he doesn't tie A to B to C. Even if AB blood were actually discovered, millions of people handled the shroud over it's 7-8 centuries of existence, the chances of accidental contamination are very high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom