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

[catsmate]

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!!

And the historical records!! I note @bobdroege7 hasn't touched Pierre d’Arcis yet.

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.

Absolutely.

 

[abstract78]

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.

Good points, if the arms could be moved then they would have surely moved the head back into a straightened position. I think, more than likely, the forger didn't even think of rigor mortis and the tilted head effect was created with dodgy 3D imaging done by believers wanting to add scientific wieght.

 

[abstract78]

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.

One thing I did think, with regards to your comment that rigor mortis doesn't start to set in till a few hours after death, I suppose a believer might argue that Jesus could have died and remained on the cross for many hours before being taken down.

 

[abstract78]

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.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[abstract78]

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.)

Your two main points are indeed very strong reasons to conclude it's fake. I do agree with you. However, the deformed claim I am guessing is based on the fact the arms are too long? If so, this could be explained by the body being bend over (if you lay on your bed and tilt your head up, your arms will reach down much further). I am not saying I believe this to be so, just a counter argument.

 

[abstract78]

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.

The absence of the projection of the sides could be explained if the cloth was not wrapped around the body, merely draped over the head from front to back. As for the top of the head, I think there is a projection? This is something I focused on at first, the top of the head needs to appear elongated, which is kind of does. It's very faint and hard to see. I am unsure. But one thing which I think is very suspicious is that if we are to believe there is a crown of thorns, then we should see a clear circular print in 2D between the front and back of the head.

 

[GlennB]

The absence of the projection of the sides could be explained if the cloth was not wrapped around the body, merely draped over the head from front to back. As for the top of the head, I think there is a projection? This is something I focused on at first, the top of the head needs to appear elongated, which is kind of does. It's very faint and hard to see. I am unsure. But one thing which I think is very suspicious is that if we are to believe there is a crown of thorns, then we should see a clear circular print in 2D between the front and back of the head.

That would only apply if the cloth were the width of a face. As long as it's wider then it must fall around the ears and beyond.
The image only makes sense if the cloth were pulled taut, like on a frame or similar.

 

[pgwenthold]

The absence of the projection of the sides could be explained if the cloth was not wrapped around the body, merely draped over the head from front to back. A

Don't they claim that his ears are visible? Regardless, it definitely shows his head outside of his eyes. No way you could see that without wrapping, and at that point, you will see massive distortion.

 

[abstract78]

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

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.




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?

Very interesting and a great point to make, focusing on the weave type is a great way to date the cloth - thank you for this information.

 

[pgwenthold]

That would only apply if the cloth were the width of a face. As long as it's wider then it must fall around the ears and beyond.
The image only makes sense if the cloth were pulled taut, like on a frame or similar.

And if that is the case, you wouldn't be able to see the hair laying to the side or any of that.

This is the basis for the claim that the image resulted from a projection of his body onto the cloth over top of him. Like his body is a DLP projector onto a screen.

Note that this claim has actually been made to address the issue that you point out. Of course, it invokes a miracle, so it doesn't really mean much.

 

[abstract78]

That would only apply if the cloth were the width of a face. As long as it's wider then it must fall around the ears and beyond.
The image only makes sense if the cloth were pulled taut, like on a frame or similar.

But think of it this way: You place a cloth on the floor and lay the body on top. Then, you fold the cloth over the head and across the front of the body. At this point, the cloth would need to be tightly wrapped around the sides. However, since the sides naturally overlap the top layer of the cloth—rather than the body itself—no markings would appear on the sides. It's so confussing lol, why has no one done this with a real body and cloth? I am sure they have but when I search I only ever find computer simulations. This should be simple to paint someone with normal paid, wrap them and see how it displays.

 

[Thermal]

One thing I did think, with regards to your comment that rigor mortis doesn't start to set in till a few hours after death, I suppose a believer might argue that Jesus could have died and remained on the cross for many hours before being taken down.

True. IIRC, there is a little inconsistency between the gospel recounting on just how long it all took (and the oddball assertion that the Romans would give a rats ass about having the body down before sundown for the Sabbath; I don't think they cared). But if the arms could be repositioned like a mannequin, I don't see why the head wouldn't have been laid flat too.

 

[bobdroege7]

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

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.




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?

I was referring to the Shroud of Lirey.

Also, I stated that there was no invisible reweave or repair.

Yeah, right, then why did they cut a 1 cm strip from the sample?

"Italian author Giorgio Tessiore, discussing the sample taking, noted, “…1 cm of the newsample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads” (Tessiore,1988:44)."

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

In other words, they cut a piece from the sample because it was from a patch.

 

[JayUtah]

In other words, they cut a piece from the sample because it was from a patch.

Then why did the archbishop of Turin have to switch the samples when no one else was looking?

 

[Thermal]

I was referring to the Shroud of Lirey.

Also, I stated that there was no invisible reweave or repair.

Yeah, right, then why did they cut a 1 cm strip from the sample?

"Italian author Giorgio Tessiore, discussing the sample taking, noted, “…1 cm of the newsample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads” (Tessiore,1988:44)."

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

In other words, they cut a piece from the sample because it was from a patch.

It's my understanding that they cut a 1cm by 7 cm strip.from the edge, and the shroud had a backing installed sometime after it was originally made. One small section (approx 1cm squared) had a few cotton strands from the backing still on it.

I mean, it doesn't even make sense that they used identical herringbone woven linen for the patch, then forgot and used cotton thread to tie it all together? But it does make sense for an independent backing that was never supposed to match a linen weave

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

For one, I am not a true believer.

I am just following the evidence in the Damon et al paper, asking why there is evidence of heterogeneity of the sample in the results.

Was the piece cut from near the edge, next to the previous Raes sample, or from the main body away from any patches or scorched areas?

Evidence of cotton fibers from the strip cut from the sample indicates that even if they were experts, they missed something, or did not have the opportunity to select an appropriate sample.

 

[bobdroege7]

Then why did the archbishop of Turin have to switch the samples when no one else was looking?

That is still an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of the sample.

Why did they, Tite and the Archbishop have to go into a separate room and hide the packaging of the samples.

Here, I'll answer that, you don't know.

 

[Thermal]

Evidence of cotton fibers from the strip cut from the sample indicates that even if they were experts, they missed something, or did not have the opportunity to select an appropriate sample.

Or that they didn't see the couple of microscopic cotton fibers left over from the backing when they pulled the sample?

 

[bobdroege7]

It's my understanding that they cut a 1cm by 7 cm strip.from the edge, and the shroud had a backing installed sometime after it was originally made. One small section (approx 1cm squared) had a few cotton strands from the backing still on it.

I mean, it doesn't even make sense that they used identical herringbone woven linen for the patch, then forgot and used cotton thread to tie it all together? But it does make sense for an independent backing that was never supposed to match a linen weave

Are you sure that it was on it and not in it?

The backing was not a herringbone weave, it was Holland cloth.

 

[JayUtah]

That is still an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of the sample.

You claim the archbishop had a motive to discredit the shroud because it depicts a non-dead Jesus. Leaving aside for a moment that this is facially absurd, you still have a dilemma. If the archbishop knew the samples were coming from an invisibly patched area, then he can expect the results to discredit the shroud. Yet for some reason he also switched the samples known to be from the patch with whatever he had supposedly palmed, again so that the results would be tainted and the shroud discredited. Why the two methods, each of which risks discovery?

Why did they, Tite and the Archbishop have to go into a separate room and hide the packaging of the samples.

Here, I'll answer that, you don't know.

You're the one who claims to know why, but all you have is speculation and circular reasoning—no evidence. You're the one claiming the archbishop switched the samples. It's your burden to prove that's what he did.