• 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?"

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...
Well said. Though I may have to dig out the petunias.....
 
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
Click to expand...
The desperation is thick here.....
There was no invisible patch. The shroud was examined, by actual experts, before being sampled.
bobdroege7 said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Bollocks, you're lying again. This nonsense has been debunked in this very thread.
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I do have plenty of evidence to reject the carbon dating.
Click to expand...
Then why aren't you showing it to others?
:rolleyes:
 
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...
:rolleyes:
And yet the sampled area was examined, including microscopically, by experts before the sample was cut. And the later examination, before the decontamination procedures, showed that the sampled fibres were almost entirely linen.
 
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...
:rolleyes: Sigh. No it doesn't. Do you actually bother to read the material you seagull post here? Or just link to whatever crap a google search suggests might support your opinions? You don't even bother to quote sections of the "paper" you link to, just hope desperately that others will accept it.

Your first lie: Hall didn't state that the cotton fibres were woven into the cloth. This appears to be deliberate misrepresentation on your part. He states that a small number of cotton threads were found.

It was Gilbert Raes who claimed that the cotton fibres were "inside the threads" of the linen. Note that even he, a shroudie, doesn't claim that the cotton was woven into the cloth. Further he was referring to an examation performed in 1975, some fifteen years before the sampling for radiocarbon dating, on a different sample....

Finally, there's actually no evidence that the threads were, in fact, cotton as no proper analysis of teh threads was carried out. Doug Farr, who used MassSpec on the fibres extracted from the Raes sample stated:
Both positive and negative SIMS spectra show simple, low mass species expected for cellulose and other organic fibres like cotton. Impurities detected were Na, F and Cl. No consistent significant differences were observed in the surface chemistry between the thin and fuzzy ends of the fibre.
Click to expand...
So, no evidence either way. Of course Bob Villarreal deliberately misrepresented Farr's results.

Now, later a better test regime was carried out. (How many here remember doing FTIR analyses?)
This would show differences between cotton and lined (due to the differences in C=O and C-O double and single bonds. Kevin Hubbard carried out such analyses (and they were presented at a shroudie conference more than a decade ago, curiously @bobdroege7 seems to have missed this data in his googleings..... :rolleyes:).
And the result: the threads could not be distinguished as either cotton or linen.

So, the executive summary:
1. there is actually no evidence of cotton threads being present.
2. If they were present, which could happen, no-one has seen them woven into the cloth.
3. And if they were there and dates from (say) 1300 they would need to make up the entire sample in order to given the radiocarbon date obtained, and yet the examination of the sample showed it to be linen, possibly with a few stray cotton threads (≪1%) and insufficient to alter the dating.

The 'C level' summary: @bobdroege7 is wrong again. The overwhelming evidence supports the shroud being created around 1300CE.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said.
I'm resisting the urge to post the exhaustive cleaning regime details..... Anyone for hot, 10 molar, hydrochloric acid?
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Oh good grief.....
@KAJ wasn't saying that, they were pointing out you were terminologically wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, I responded to @Myriad who used (and differentiated between) the terms "standard deviation" and "standard error", and I introduced the third term "standard uncertainty", which I think is more appropriate to this discussion.
 
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes! Precisely! The one thing I've learned about scientists working in a lab is just how meticulous they are. Especially when they are working on something that could be precious. The idea that they wouldn't look very closely at the shroud before they took a sample from it is absurd. They are not going to act recklessly and haphazardly.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes! Precisely! The one thing I've learned about scientists working in a lab is just how meticulous they are. Especially when they are working on something that could be precious. The idea that they wouldn't look very closely at the shroud before they took a sample from it is absurd. They are not going to act recklessly and haphazardly.
Click to expand...
I remember Pr. Lloyd instilling, or trying to, good lab practices into us.
 
catsmate said:
I remember Pr. Lloyd instilling, or trying to, good lab practices into us.
Click to expand...
My company just completed a two-year effort aimed at nothing but creating, testing, validating, and refining laboratory practices for a project that's in development. Most people have no idea what happens in laboratories or how much effort is put into processes designed to confidently obtain the right answers.
 
acbytesla said:
When you get to a particular level, they just don't teach good lab practices, they demand them. They understand that shoddy experiments will result in failures.
Click to expand...
When your lab practices are used not only just to test things but also to hand-manufacture items for commercial sale, the qualification of that item is in some cases reckoned by objective evidence that you followed the procedures you devised and validated and encountered no irregularities. Lab practices are not just a good idea; in some cases they're the law.
 
JayUtah said:
My company just completed a two-year effort aimed at nothing but creating, testing, validating, and refining laboratory practices for a project that's in development. Most people have no idea what happens in laboratories or how much effort is put into processes designed to confidently obtain the right answers.
Click to expand...
Damn right. Down to things like having lab notebooks notarised at intervals (in the old days).
I worked a fair bit with LIMS from the late '90s, having both IT and chemistry experience. A vast change in working practices.
 
acbytesla said:
When you get to a particular level, they just don't teach good lab practices, they demand them. They understand that shoddy experiments will result in failures.
Click to expand...
Or death. Or worse, lawyers

I remember an interesting introduction to working with organic peroxides and knew someone who had a rather lackadaisical attitude towards the proper procedures for working with cyanides.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Surely if he did tie it together, it would show ABC blood was found. It’s easy as 1-2-3.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
gypsyjackson said:
Surely if he did tie it together, it would show ABC blood was found. It’s easy as 1-2-3.
Click to expand...
It'd be nice to see @bobdroege7 providing evidence of blood actually being on the shroud. Any blood....

Of course it'd be nice if @bobdroege7 provided evidence for any of his various assertions, rather than seagulling semi-random links he hasn't bothered to even read.
 
8enotto said:
The process of making a similar image has been done in modern times. It was done using medival tools and technique from the 1300s. It is known how to do it.
A most likely suspect is known too.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I tried to find if anyone recreated it but couldn't find any info. I am still stuck on the head tilting forwards, if the 3D scans are true and the head was indeed tilted forwards, that means the forger would have had the foresight to make it appear that rigor mortis had set it whilst the person was on the cross. However, others here in this chat have said that the 3D imagine is unreliable. What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom