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

[abstract78]

The issue immediately at hand is that the correlation between the shroud image and the concept of a "height map" is clearly an AI hallucination. This is why I and others encourage you not to rely too heavily on its answers.

The purported ability to extract a contour from the variation in image intensity is an ongoing debate. I can explain in more detail why that effort is problematic. The issue here is that a "height map" does not encode 3D data in a way that is relevant to analyzing the image on the shroud. A height map would require us to consider the shroud as a canonical, normalized two-dimensional domain. But the draping of the shroud and the physics of how shroud authenticists purport the image to have transferred from the remains to the shroud is not consistent with that formulation.

This is not information purely from AI - the concept of a "height map" comes from various tests which are nothing to do with AI. I read about it online and then used AI to ask specific questions, but the images were around before AI. I'd be interested to learn more from you about why the height map could be incorrect because, for some reason, I find this specific detail the most compelling evidence - I understand it's likely a total fake (and I hope it is) but I want to 'put to bed' my doubts, and this 3D image of a man with head tilted forward is preventing me from moving on.

 

[erwinl]

This is not information purely from AI - the concept of a "height map" comes from various tests which are nothing to do with AI. I read about it online and then used AI to ask specific questions, but the images were around before AI. I'd be interested to learn more from you about why the height map could be incorrect because, for some reason, I find this specific detail the most compelling evidence - I understand it's likely a total fake (and I hope it is) but I want to 'put to bed' my doubts, and this 3D image of a man with head tilted forward is preventing me from moving on.

Why does this 'tilting head forwards' prevent you from moving on and not the absence of the projection of the sides and the top of the head?
Besides what does the right hand do for you? It's almost as if the figure holds a separated hand in the left one. Even with that, that hand has digits which would almost be like those of the hands of Robert Wadlow.

 

[catsmate]

Interesting. I tried to find if anyone recreated it but couldn't find any info.

??? You obviously haven't looked very hard.

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?

I think the evidence overwhelmingly supports a medieval origin.

 

[Darat]

This is not information purely from AI - the concept of a "height map" comes from various tests which are nothing to do with AI. I read about it online and then used AI to ask specific questions, but the images were around before AI. I'd be interested to learn more from you about why the height map could be incorrect because, for some reason, I find this specific detail the most compelling evidence - I understand it's likely a total fake (and I hope it is)
but I want to 'put to bed' my doubts, and this 3D image of a man with head tilted forward is preventing me from moving on.

Just the 3D thing makes you linger in the land of the faithful? Really don't understand this. The 2 facts against it ever being even considered real doesn't need any modern science, any photographic techniques, physical examination of the cloth et cetera et cetera. Those two facts are 1) no such shrouds were used at the time Jesus is meant to have died and 2) no mention of it prior to its verified appearance in medieval times.

(If you want to you can throw in a 3rd in which is that it is not an anatomically accurate representation of a human body, the only reason I don't usually add in the 3rd is that if Jesus did exist perhaps he was physically deformed but none of the gospel authors liked to mention that because of political-correctness-gone- mad/wokeness.)

 

[JayUtah]

This is not information purely from AI - the concept of a "height map" comes from various tests which are nothing to do with AI.

You misunderstand my objection. When I say "AI hallucination," I mean that the AI appears to have connected two related but unconnected concepts. I'm not asserting that height maps are, should, or should not have anything to do with AI per se.

 

[Darat]

??? You obviously haven't looked very hard.

I think the evidence overwhelmingly supports a medieval origin.

There is in fact not one atom of evidence that it is Jesus's shroud (or anyone's shroud from the 1st century), somehow those that claim it is have managed to reverse the burden of proof, it should be those claiming it is that have the burden of proof and they have absolutely zero evidence it was.

 

[Thermal]

This is not information purely from AI - the concept of a "height map" comes from various tests which are nothing to do with AI. I read about it online and then used AI to ask specific questions, but the images were around before AI. I'd be interested to learn more from you about why the height map could be incorrect because, for some reason, I find this specific detail the most compelling evidence - I understand it's likely a total fake (and I hope it is) but I want to 'put to bed' my doubts, and this 3D image of a man with head tilted forward is preventing me from moving on.

Maybe this was discussed already (I forget), but rigor mortis doesn't start to set in till a few hours after death, and takes about 12 hours to get full rigid. If rigor had set in enough to lock the head in the hanging down on the cross position, how were the arms crossed modestly in front of the Holy Dong?

Also, if the head was tilted forward, there would be a big ol' splotch on the shroud where it was in contact with the top (if the crown of thorns was left there, we wouldn't see the puncture wounds and blood stains, not to mention there is no way a washed and anointed body would still have the mocking crown on it).

The head tilted forward hypothesis introduces more flaws than it solves.

 

[catsmate]

There is in fact not one atom of evidence that it is Jesus's shroud (or anyone's shroud from the 1st century), somehow those that claim it is have managed to reverse the burden of proof, it should be those claiming it is that have the burden of proof and they have absolutely zero evidence it was.

Exactly, that's the standard tactic of the woo-peddler.

 

[catsmate]

Maybe this was discussed already (I forget), but rigor mortis doesn't start to set in till a few hours after death, and takes about 12 hours to get full rigid. If rigor had set in enough to lock the head in the hanging down on the cross position, how were the arms crossed modestly in front of the Holy Dong?

Also, if the head was tilted forward, there would be a big ol' splotch on the shroud where it was in contact with the top (if the crown of thorns was left there, we wouldn't see the puncture wounds and blood stains, not to mention there is no way a washed and anointed body would still have the mocking crown on it).

The head tilted forward hypothesis introduces more flaws than it solves.

And the number of factors that influence the onset, progression and passing of rigor mortis can, and have, filled a textbook.

 

[JayUtah]

If rigor had set in enough to lock the head in the hanging down on the cross position, how were the arms crossed modestly in front of the Holy Dong?

For what it's worth, the Bible record reports that Jesus died at about 3:00 pm on Friday. Sundown in Israel in April is around 7:00 pm. The two thieves were still alive at this time, which is why the soldiers had to deliver a coup de grace in order to allow removal of the bodies before the Sabbath began at sundown. Jesus would have been dead on the cross for up to four hours prior to removal. This is within the margin for rigor mortis of the face. But then another problem arises in that rigor mortis doesn't last forever. It subsides around 24 hours after death, meaning that Jesus' neck would have relaxed by Saturday afternoon. It then becomes a matter of speculating when the moment of resurrection occurred in the rigor mortis sequence, which is a dead end.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... rigor mortis had set it whilst the person was on the cross.

Even if it had, why would they have applied the shroud while rigor was still present?
Not to mention, the hands wouldn't have been over the genital area when the person was on the cross.

 

[acbytesla]

I have to admit I find this thread kind of ridiculous. As if someone 400 years ago found a sword that matched some of the details from the story of King Arthur's sword Excalibur. And here we are arguing about whether it is genuine. Well, the metallurgy is similar to what can be expected from Northern England from the 5th century . And the ornamental handle is what we might expect for a King. Etc, etc, etc.

The Gospels were written 30 to 70 years after the supposed crucifixion. And even they don't even agree on the details despite 3 of them probably being copied from each other or another source. The idea that any part of the crucifixion story has any merit at all is highly suspect. That makes the idea of a piece of cloth found 1500 years later with a strange image on it being the burial cloth of Jesus insanely ridiculous.

 

[JayUtah]

I have to admit I find this thread kind of ridiculous.

Indeed, the shroud claim is absurd on its face. And for that reason many simply ignore it. But if you choose not to ignore the claim, then you have to address the argument that's presented. If the argument that's presented is about alleged blood or height maps or supposedly invisible patches, you have to rebut that argument.

There is a much more plausible explanation for how the shroud got to prominence and where it might have come from. For shroud authenticists to say that explanation has too many holes is fairly amusing. Parsimony allows for holes in an argument and holes in the evidence. It requires us to compare the assumptions in each hypothesis and determine which of them is tolerable. The assumptions required to equate the Turin shroud with the exact burial of Jesus are frankly astronomical.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed, the shroud claim is absurd on its face. And for that reason many simply ignore it. But if you choose not to ignore the claim, then you have to address the argument that's presented. If the argument that's presented is about alleged blood or height maps or supposedly invisible patches, you have to rebut that argument.

There is a much more plausible explanation for how the shroud got to prominence and where it might have come from. For shroud authenticists to say that explanation has too many holes is fairly amusing. Parsimony allows for holes in an argument and holes in the evidence. It requires us to compare the assumptions in each hypothesis and determine which of them is tolerable. The assumptions required to equate the Turin shroud with the exact burial of Jesus are frankly astronomical.

Exactly!

Assumptions piled on top of assumptions piled on top of assumptions.

 

[bobdroege7]

The desperation is thick here.....
There was no invisible patch. The shroud was examined, by actual experts, before being sampled.

Bollocks, you're lying again. This nonsense has been debunked in this very thread.

Then why aren't you showing it to others?

Still you can find pictures of the actual samples that were tested, I have posted those.

The patch is visible.

"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."

from Damon et al.

So which was it, from the left hand edge or a single site on the main body of the shroud?

Why are you actually lying about what evidence I have provided.

And as for 1st century linens with herringbone weave, you know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And Yes, there is blood on the shroud.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Forensic-aspects-and-blood-chemistry-of-the-Turin-Svensson-Heimburger/3fa4b0e9fb93e7eab53f85a01fcd016ed2bce8f0

 

[catsmate]

Still you can find pictures of the actual samples that were tested, I have posted those.

The patch is visible.

"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."

from Damon et al.

So which was it, from the left hand edge or a single site on the main body of the shroud?

Why are you actually lying about what evidence I have provided.

And as for 1st century linens with herringbone weave, you know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And Yes, there is blood on the shroud.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Forensic-aspects-and-blood-chemistry-of-the-Turin-Svensson-Heimburger/3fa4b0e9fb93e7eab53f85a01fcd016ed2bce8f0

Sweet jeffing jeebus, do you actually bother to read what you c&p?
Yes their are plenty of pictures of the sampled area, which was (as the piece you quote states) well away from any patches and examined microscopically by experts.

And, no, there is no blood on the shroud.

I see you've finally given up on you assertions regarding the prevalence of herringbone weaves in first century Palestine. That's a start at embracing reality.

 

[catsmate]

For what it's worth, the Bible record reports that Jesus died at about 3:00 pm on Friday. Sundown in Israel in April is around 7:00 pm. The two thieves were still alive at this time, which is why the soldiers had to deliver a coup de grace in order to allow removal of the bodies before the Sabbath began at sundown. Jesus would have been dead on the cross for up to four hours prior to removal. This is within the margin for rigor mortis of the face. But then another problem arises in that rigor mortis doesn't last forever. It subsides around 24 hours after death, meaning that Jesus' neck would have relaxed by Saturday afternoon. It then becomes a matter of speculating when the moment of resurrection occurred in the rigor mortis sequence, which is a dead end.

Also, if you move a limb (for example) effected by rigor, it remains flexible afterwards.

 

[bobdroege7]

Sweet jeffing jeebus, do you actually bother to read what you c&p?
Yes their are plenty of pictures of the sampled area, which was (as the piece you quote states) well away from any patches and examined microscopically by experts.

And, no, there is no blood on the shroud.

I see you've finally given up on you assertions regarding the prevalence of herringbone weaves in first century Palestine. That's a start at embracing reality.

Sweet jeffing jeebus, do you know the difference between their, there, and they're? You should have learned that in high school.

Do you have a map of the shroud showing where the patches are? The picture I posted shows a patch, but now that piece is gone, having been put through carbon-14 testing.

Do you know of an example of herringbone twill from the middle ages?

I only know of one, and it's not the shroud.

 

[Pacal]

Still you can find pictures of the actual samples that were tested, I have posted those.

The patch is visible.

"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."

from Damon et al.

So which was it, from the left hand edge or a single site on the main body of the shroud?

Why are you actually lying about what evidence I have provided.

And as for 1st century linens with herringbone weave, you know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And Yes, there is blood on the shroud.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Forensic-aspects-and-blood-chemistry-of-the-Turin-Svensson-Heimburger/3fa4b0e9fb93e7eab53f85a01fcd016ed2bce8f0

The article you cite is summarized as follows:

"No findings speak against the hypothesis that the TS once has enveloped the body of the historical Jesus, and the distribution and flow of the blood, the position of the body are compatible with the fact that the Turin Shroud Man (TSM) has been crucified."

The above is a mess of nonsense. "No findings" Really!! What about the carbon 14 results!!

The rest is very funny. The image is very undistorted and looks like a painting!! The blood flow patterns are not what you would see from a freshly rapped, newly dead corpse. And of course need it be mentioned that the body according to the New Testament was washed and anointed!

It is obvious that the writer of this article is just another Shroudie wanting to believe it is Jesus' shroud.

The argument it was a repair patched that was tested risible. Do you really think the people who did the carbon 14 tests were that incompetent! Its all smoke and mirrors because they don't like the carbon 14 results.

The true believers will never stop it seems.

 

[catsmate]

Do you have a map of the shroud showing where the patches are? The picture I posted shows a patch, but now that piece is gone, having been put through carbon-14 testing.

Yes. There are also photographs and the testimony of the experts present.
There was no magic/invisible/cotton/patch there.

Do you know of an example of herringbone twill from the middle ages?

Yes. The so-called Lirey shroud; there are many, many others. But then, unlike you, I've done some actual research, and familiarised myself with (as an example) the developmental history of looms.


For those, unlike @bobdroege7, who are interested in the herringbone pattern read on....
Firstly it's not actually ‘herringbone’. This is a common term used but to an expert, or someone who's bothered to Do The Research, it is in fact a ‘chevron’ weave.
This is one of those differences that is important to an expert but generally irrelevant to others. Basically it's down to the way the war and weft threads intersect; the warp threads run longitudinally along the length of the cloth while the weft threads run over and under the warp (in the case of the Lirey cloth this is under three warp threads, then over one, under three, over one, and repeat until it reaches the ‘spine’ of the sloth where the diagonals change direction.
In true ‘herringbone’ these 'ribs' are slightly off-set while in 'chevron' the two sets of ‘ribs’ attached to each ‘spine’ are exactly symmetrical.

Though of course this isn't actually true: an interesting fact is that the front of Lirey cloth is actually the back. this is down to the weaving process where lifting three-quarters of the warp threads at a time is awkward, heavy, and prone to tangling.

This back/front difference, with varied numbers of warp and weft threads, which are spun differently and hold colour differently, is noticeable if one examines the photographs taken for the 2002 shroud restoration, where the two can be easily differentiated.

• As an aside, this restoration, performed by textile experts, showed no invisible/magic/cotton patches. This should surprise no-one, except perhaps @bobdroege7.

Now, on to the prevalence of what I shall for convenience continue to call 'herringbone' twill. While shroudies and our own @bobdroege7 like to cite Gilbert Raes as the be-all and end-all of textile expertise regarding the Lirey cloth there are problems. His examinations in 1973 were not based on an examination of the shole cloth, but only on tiny samples from it.

Remember the radiocarbon dating in 1988? The one that conclusive proved the medieval origin of the Lirey cloth> Well the shroud was examined in detail, both visually and microscopically then by Gabriel Vial (then General Secretary of the Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens) as well as (remember her) Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. They were quite definite on the weave:
Vial was certain, and published, that the Lirey cloth had been woven on a four-shaft treadle loom. Moveover he was dismissive of those who had claimed to have found similar textiles from ancient times.
Let use weigh in with another expert. Donald King, who responded to the discussion in the various journals and describes fragment of printed cloth from the fourteenth century in the Victoria and Albert museum (probably Italian).

A number of art experts contributed as the herringbone weave is a feature of paintings, as the use of the four-shaft treadle loom allowed for wide cloth and hence larger surfaces to paint upon with less stitching together of canvas

• If you're interested any decent book on art history will cover this subject; Titian, in particular, frequently painted on herringbone patterned canvas but others (e.g. El Greco and Rembrandt) did so also.

Interestingly, the four-shaft treadle loom wasn't universally adopted but seems to have been popular in certain locations. There are hundreds of examples from parts of Germany (I recommend Hans-Jurgen Hundt's 'Die Textil-und Schnurreste' of 1981, in translation for those whose German is less fluent, as 'The Textile Cord and Residues'). He lists 129 herringbone/chevron pattern samples from Elisenhof and 28 from Hessens alone. Seven more from Haithabu are listed.

Conclusion
The Material of the Lirey cloth was woven on a four-shaft treadle loom in a chevron/herringbone pattern that was moderately common in the thirteen hundreds.

I only know of one, and it's not the shroud.

What is this nonsense supposed to mean? Are you denying the herringbone weave of the Lirey cloth? Are you denying there are extant examples fro the period?