• 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?"

With regards to the ears not showing, the ears would not show anyway due to the hair covering them., However, I did a small test using paper, and interestingly, if the ears where not covered by hair, it's possible the front of the ears would actually appear on the back (underside) image. Here's how;

If you imagine laying the body down on the cloth and folding the cloth over the head and across the front of the body, you'd then have the sides to wrap around the body—the front and back sheets. The most natural way to do this would be to fold the top sheet tight around the face and then pull the bottom sheet up and over the face. But, if you did that in reverse, pulling the bottom sheet up to the sides of the face and then wrap the top around the body, then any imprint from the front of the ear would actually appear on the back side of the cloth!

Of course, it is much more likely that they would have wrapped the top sides around the body first and then pulled the bottom sides up and over. But, thought I'd mention it!
 
bobdroege7 said:
I was referring to the Shroud of Lirey.

Also, I stated that there was no invisible reweave or repair.
Click to expand...
So the experts saw the patch? Is this your new argument?
bobdroege7 said:
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)."
Click to expand...
Wow, coloured threads. On a cloth with a pigment image......
bobdroege7 said:
In other words, they cut a piece from the sample because it was from a patch.
Click to expand...
Ehhhhh, no. Experts, examination, no patch.
 
Thermal said:
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that they cut a 1cm by 7 cm strip.from the edge, and the shroud had a backing installed sometime after it was originally made.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
Click to expand...
Haven't you learned about posting facts in this thread?
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: There are diagrams....
Maybe you could do some research for yourself?
 
abstract78 said:
With regards to the ears not showing, the ears would not show anyway due to the hair covering them., However, I did a small test using paper, and interestingly, if the ears where not covered by hair, it's possible the front of the ears would actually appear on the back (underside) image. Here's how;

If you imagine laying the body down on the cloth and folding the cloth over the head and across the front of the body, you'd then have the sides to wrap around the body—the front and back sheets. The most natural way to do this would be to fold the top sheet tight around the face and then pull the bottom sheet up and over the face. But, if you did that in reverse, pulling the bottom sheet up to the sides of the face and then wrap the top around the body, then any imprint from the front of the ear would actually appear on the back side of the cloth!

Of course, it is much more likely that they would have wrapped the top sides around the body first and then pulled the bottom sides up and over. But, thought I'd mention it!
Click to expand...
That kind of wrapping would produce a lot of wadding of the cloth around the occupant, making it virtually impossible to result in the crisp 2-D image though.

The ears aren't visible due to the hair, that's true. But try a couple paper towels draped across your face, to the area where the hair covered ears would be. Mark the ears with a highlighter. Then hold it up and see how wide that face should look on the shroud. It's alarming.
 
This thread is getting a bit repetitive. Ridiculous attacks on the radiocarbon dating, be it fraud, contamination or invisible patching, non-existant blood traces, refusal to address uncomfortable facts and evidence, bald assertions unsupported by evidence and seagulled links that don't actually underwrite the claims made.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find the whole crucifiction story suspicious from start to end. For one Jesus was killed for breaking jewish holy law, sentenced by the Sanhedrin. The death penalty under jewish law didn't include crucifiction as a means of killing, you were either stoned or hanged. And the Romans wouldn't have stepped into the internal laws of what was a client state without good cause. My view is that either Jesus didn't die on a cross or what he was teaching was radically different from what's in the bible.
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.

Click to expand...
I see you've gone from the samples being swapped out (by a man whose income depended on the shroud being believed to be genuine, no less!) to the idea that it wasn't the original but a medaeval patch. Has there bern any point in this discussion where you weren't lying?
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I find the whole crucifiction story suspicious from start to end. For one Jesus was killed for breaking jewish holy law, sentenced by the Sanhedrin. The death penalty under jewish law didn't include crucifiction as a means of killing, you were either stoned or hanged. And the Romans wouldn't have stepped into the internal laws of what was a client state without good cause. My view is that either Jesus didn't die on a cross or what he was teaching was radically different from what's in the bible.
Click to expand...

Well the source for Jesus being tried by the Sanhedrin is in fact the New Testament. Such a "Trial" during Passover week was bluntly dubious. Also it appears that the Romans took over in their provinces death penalty cases. Also if you read the Gospels from earliest to latest the responsibility of the Jewish authorities increases and the Romans get more and more blameless. Death by crucifixion was done by the Romans against rebels and other enemies of the state and considered a truly shameful way to die, along with being very brutal.

Given that the early Church was in a struggle with mainstream Judaism I just don't see why they would have Jesus crucified by Romans if they could fully blame Jewish authorities for Jesus' death. Jesus' death occurred around Passover a time in which very large numbers of pilgrims were in Jerusalem and the situation extremely tense because of that. Pilate being there with a large number of troops makes sense. Pilate was known for his brutality and having one alleged disturber of the peace crucified would not have bothered him in the slightest. Pilate's portrayal in the New Testament is bluntly just silly. (The incident of driving the money changers out of the Temple, assuming it actually happened would have been ample incentive to kill Jesus.)

The whole "Trial" before the Sanhedrin and then the "Trial" before Pilate are dubious at most it would have been questioning.

In Judea at the time executing alleged "Messiahs" happened and Jesus was just one more victim.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I find the whole crucifiction story suspicious from start to end. For one Jesus was killed for breaking jewish holy law, sentenced by the Sanhedrin. The death penalty under jewish law didn't include crucifiction as a means of killing, you were either stoned or hanged. And the Romans wouldn't have stepped into the internal laws of what was a client state without good cause. My view is that either Jesus didn't die on a cross or what he was teaching was radically different from what's in the bible.
Click to expand...
Me too. And yes, those reasons make the story suspect. As if it wasn't anyway. Witness testimony is highly unreliable at best. And the Gospels weren't eyewitness accounts. They may have been the result of oral tradition. But anyone who has ever played the telephone game understands how the details of a story changes with the retelling. And this telephone game spanned 3 decades and at least 2 languages and cultures.

Since we cannot really rely on the details of the story being correct, what sense does it make criticizing those unreliable details?
 
Christian writers have spilled quite a lot of ink trying to show how Jesus' trial as described in the New Testament was invalid for one reason or another. Jewish authors have spilled considerable ink defending their scriptures and history from misuse at the hands of Christianity. The Christians cite the illegality of Jesus' trial as evidence of the Jews' animus toward Jesus. Jews cite the legal absurdity of the story as evidence that it didn't happen as described.

Accepting the shroud of Turin as evidence of the reality of Jesus' existence and execution is simply an exercise in circular reading. It's just an illustration of a story that exists only in disputed, dubiously authoritative accounts written long after the fact and debated by people far removed from the events depicted.
 
Thermal said:
Or that they didn't see the couple of microscopic cotton fibers left over from the backing when they pulled the sample?
Click to expand...
A couple of microscopic cotton fibers would not have produced the high chi^2 test.

This statement from the Damon paper is incorrect.

"The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."

Because the sample was taken from the edge, and contained dyed fibers, indicating that the sample was from a patch.

The backing cloth is also linen, not cotton.
 
And around the mulberry bush we go - could I ask people to do a bit of pruning as they pass my mulberry bush- it's been on my todo list for a little while, may as well get something out of this.
 
catsmate said:
So the experts saw the patch? Is this your new argument?

Wow, coloured threads. On a cloth with a pigment image......

Ehhhhh, no. Experts, examination, no patch.
Click to expand...
No, I said they must have missed the patch, or didn't have a say in where the sample was taken.

The "pigments" are evenly distributed over the whole cloth, with regards to the ocher, and the vermillion was only from a couple places and the source of the vermillion was from other painted shrouds being laid on the Shroud of Turin to upgrade their relic status.

The samples were not from the image or blood stained areas. They were from the edge where patches or more correctly reweaves.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I see you've gone from the samples being swapped out (by a man whose income depended on the shroud being believed to be genuine, no less!) to the idea that it wasn't the original but a medaeval patch. Has there bern any point in this discussion where you weren't lying?
Click to expand...
Income depending on the Shroud?

Cock and bull, the Archbishop has more duties than keeping the Shroud.

If you can explain why Tite and the Archbishop were packing the samples away from the rest of the team that was so diligently documenting the whole process but the packing of the samples. They had opportunity to do some monkey business away from the rest of the team.

It is plain and simple scientific fraud.

"The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."

From https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Not from the main body, but from the corner near the edge, where the Shroud had been patched.
 
JayUtah said:
"Did" or "must have?" When you say "must have" you seem to be guessing based on what you need to be true.
Click to expand...
Why do you "need" to accept a failed chi^2 test indicating that the sample was not homogeneous?

You are accepting bad science, is that to support your world view?

Yes, and I am "guessing" that Damon et al made false statements in their paper.

I don't "need" anything to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom