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

[JayUtah]

Why do you "need" to accept a failed chi^2 test...

Don't change the subject. You say the experts "must have" missed the patch. In the alternative you claim that the experts "must have" had no say over where the patch was taken. What is your evidence that either of these actually happened?

 

[JayUtah]

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

Irrelevant. As pertains to the shroud, the archbishop has an interest in an authentic shroud, not a fake shroud. You claim otherwise based solely on your fiat declaration that the shroud depicts a person who was not dead.

 

[junkshop]

Ignore this.



_{fat finger moment}

 

[bobdroege7]

Don't change the subject. You say the experts "must have" missed the patch. In the alternative you claim that the experts "must have" had no say over where the patch was taken. What is your evidence that either of these actually happened?

In the Damon paper.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

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

I have already shown the sample was from a patched area.

 

[JayUtah]

In the Damon paper.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

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

I have already shown the sample was from a patched area.

So it's your conclusion that the experts "must have" missed the patch. You don't consider that the alleged oversight might be evidence that your claim of a patch might be the part of your argument that's in error.

This is what I mean by you concluding what you need to be true, rather than finding evidence that it is true. You've offered a hypothesis to explain a discrepancy in the evidence. Now you need to provide evidence that your hypothesis is the best explanation from all those available. Circular reasoning seems to be your only stock in trade.

 

[Thermal]

In the Damon paper.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

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

I have already shown the sample was from a patched area.

You keep saying this, but you really, really haven't. You're kind of saying "if we say it was from a patched area, we can say the radiocarbon dating was bad". But you're not showing that?

 

[Thermal]

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.

What does that have to do with anything? The backing would have been sewn on with thread, not necessarily matching the cloth material. A couple microscopic strands were detected on one area, and that part was discarded for that reason. Nothing about that indicates an invisible patch.

 

[catsmate]

A couple of microscopic cotton fibers would not have produced the high chi^2 test.

Despite your claims there is no issue with the statistical analysis of the radiocarbon results.

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."

The sample was cut by Riggi di Numana; it consisted of a small strip of cloth, approximately 8cm long and 2cm wide, off the corner of the Shroud adjacent to the ventral image of the legs.

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

Utter and total bollocks, as usual for you. The cloth was examined and there was no patching in the sampled area.

 

[catsmate]

No, I said they must have missed the patch, or didn't have a say in where the sample was taken.

Both of these statements are untrue. The cloth was examined by experts, hence there was no patch, and the area to be sampled was discussed.

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.

Sigh. As McCrone's analysis states in detail this is untrue.

The samples were not from the image or blood stained areas. They were from the edge where patches or more correctly reweaves.

No. There was no patching, or "reweaving" ( I see you're trying to change direction again) in the sampled area.

 

[catsmate]

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.

More pathetic nonsense. Now you're accusing others of lying again, just so you can believe in your silly cloth

 

[catsmate]

In the Damon paper.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

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

I have already shown the sample was from a patched area.

No you haven't. You're lying again. You've asserted this but provided no evidence for your claim.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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

Being a religious man, the Archbishop would naturally keep the authentic shroud close to himself, so the scientist must choose the other cloth.
However, knowing that the scientist must be so passionate to debunk the shroud, he would instinctively reach for whichever cloth is closest to him, and that's how he knows that the Archbishop put the authentic cloth in front of the scientist!

 

[Thermal]

Being a religious man, the Archbishop would naturally keep the authentic shroud close to himself, so the scientist must choose the other cloth.
However, knowing that the scientist must be so passionate to debunk the shroud, he would instinctively reach for whichever cloth is closest to him, and that's how he knows that the Archbishop put the authentic cloth in front of the scientist!

Unless he spent the last few years developing an immunity to chi^2 testing.

 

[catsmate]

Being a religious man, the Archbishop would naturally keep the authentic shroud close to himself, so the scientist must choose the other cloth.
However, knowing that the scientist must be so passionate to debunk the shroud, he would instinctively reach for whichever cloth is closest to him, and that's how he knows that the Archbishop put the authentic cloth in front of the scientist!

Very Princess Bride.....

 

[catsmate]

I note that, like many other shroudies, @bobdroege7 is attempting to pivot from the 'invisible patch' to 'undetectable reweave' to attempt to explain why the experts who examined the shroud prior to the radiocarbon sampling managed take apieve that hasn't the "real" cloth.
This was a popular theory amongst shroudies around '02/'03 but is, naturally, as nonsensical as their various other attempts to cope with the annoying science that contradicts their opinions.

The "undetectable reweave' excuse says that, unlike the other shroud patches which are bloody obvious to the naked eye, the patch in the sampled area was rewoven at some time using later threads that caused the C14 dating to be off.

Now there are several reasons why this "theory" is drivel.
1. Firstly reweaving, which is a real technique used to repair textiles, generally uses threads fro, the cloth, either from the damaged area or harvested from elsewhere.Hence it would have very little effect on carbon dating.
2. If foreign threads are introduced during such a repair then they have to be woven into the existing threat=ds at some point, something that is quite obvious on close inspection, especially when done by three experts using magnifiers and microscopes. And, as we discussed in the Jabba days, such repairs are quite obvious when the cloth is examined from the rear.
3. Then there is the lack of evidence for such work. Was it done in the 1350s? If so it would be a unique example of such subtle repair work, far beyond anything known to hextile historians. Was it done later still, when techniques had improved, blending in threads from a later date. If so,then when, why and by whom?
This theory falls down in two respects, lack of historical evidence that such repairs were carried out and the common problem of the amount of material that would have to be added to offset the C14 results by (according to shroudies) some 1300 years.

No, we have to consign the "undetectable reweave' to the same bin of failed theories as 'contamination' and "invisible patch'. The Lirey cloth remains a medieval creation.

 

[Susheel]

Seriously...is Jabba back and indulging in a delayed fringe reset?

 

[turingtest]

I think Jay has already pointed this out, but...if the only evidence for the hypothesis that it was "invisible reweaves" that caused the Shroud to be dated wrongly (from a believer's POV) is the assertion that it was dated wrongly because of them, then the whole thing is a circular non-starter anyway.

 

[catsmate]

Seriously...is Jabba back and indulging in a delayed fringe reset?

It's deja vu all over again.....

Well I think it's just that woo-peddlers in general use the same tactics; lies, obfuscations, Gish Galloping, highly mobile goalposts, circular reasoning, fringe resets and so on.
And, of course, seagulling whatever links a Google search unearths without bothering to check their relevance.

I think Jay has already pointed this out, but...if the only evidence for the hypothesis that it was "invisible reweaves" that caused the Shroud to be dated wrongly (from a believer's POV) is the assertion that it was dated wrongly because of them, then the whole thing is a circular non-starter anyway.

Yeah.

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "authenticist" believers are part of a CT, both resist falsification and are also reinforced by circular reasoning. Both any evidence against the conspiracy and any absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted by the conspiracy theorist as evidence of its truth.
Thus the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.

 

[JayUtah]

I think Jay has already pointed this out, but...if the only evidence for the hypothesis that it was "invisible reweaves" that caused the Shroud to be dated wrongly (from a believer's POV) is the assertion that it was dated wrongly because of them, then the whole thing is a circular non-starter anyway.

That would be a classic circularity.

It's astounding how many people fall into the trap of what we sometimes call the pothole-shaped puddle. It's entirely proper to form a hypothesis to explain an observation. That's how we work. Ideally we want lots of hypotheses and, if possible, multiple ways to test them. But the essential property of all the hypotheses is that they explain the observation. That's what they were created to do. It's then an attractive prospect—but very circular and wrong—to cite as evidence for the hypothesis how well it explains the observation. It's akin to marveling that there must be something magical about the puddle because of how exactly it fits into its pothole.

The observation here is the carbon-14 dating puts the shroud in the medieval period. The hypothesis formed to explain that observation is that the test specimen came from a patch, a piece of non-original cloth. Now the argument to establish that this is the best hypothesis to explain the observation has to address why the textile experts missed the alleged patch. This is one of those "You had one job!" situations, and those are the people who do that job best, so it has to be a pretty convincing argument. Speculating vaguely that they "must" have missed the patch is the quintessential cop-out. It simply states what the claimant wants or needs to be true in order for that argument to succeed, without providing it. The circularity arises when the fact that the carbon-14 data was not as expected is held up as evidence for the specific hypothesis that the textile experts "must" have missed the patch—the assertion that that's the best way to explain the carbon-14 date.

That's obviously circular, and something of a straw-man rebuttal since here the claimant purports to have other evidence consistent with a patch. But at best that provides evidence only of contamination, not of a patch. That forces a change of hypothesis, since we now must include the possibility of such things as explicit backing material or other support materials. If limited to microscopic amounts, the power of the hypothesis to explain the outcome fails. If allowed to be macroscopic, we're back to the same problem of preposterous failure on the part of textile experts. I have to include this paragraph out of fairness. But the essence of the rebuttal is still that the attractive fit of some hypothesis to the observation that the hypothesis was specifically formulated to explain. You can't use that fit to overcome the emergence of some absurdity in the hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

Both any evidence against the conspiracy and any absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted by the conspiracy theorist as evidence of its truth.
Thus the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.

Agreed. The parsimonious conclusion here is that the carbon-14 findings are legitimate and that the failure of textile experts to find any significant contamination is because there wasn't any. One conclusion most completely and credibly explains multiple observations and is therefore more likely to be the right answer.