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

[bobdroege7]

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.

Edited by Agatha: 

Do not discuss matters of moderation or forum management outside the Forum Management Feedback section

Second, just because you can not find any evidence of repairs to the shroud does not mean they were not performed, there is actual evidence that the shroud was repaired. And it is known who did some of the repairs.

Third, "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." so you are advocating scientific fraud?

Fourth, in the Damon paper they claim the samples were from " The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." which is not true, they lied in the paper, so it's NFG, back to the drawing board, we really have no evidence it was medieval.

Still back to the unanswered questions about the failed chi^2 test.[/url]

 

[bobdroege7]

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

Yes I have, I have provided evidence for where the radiocarbon samples were taken from, from the edge of the shroud next to the corner where the Raes sample was taken.

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

I know you can't spell there, but can you read?

 

[JayUtah]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed quote of moderated portion of post and response to same

Second, just because you can not find any evidence of repairs to the shroud does not mean they were not performed, there is actual evidence that the shroud was repaired. And it is known who did some of the repairs.

This doesn't fix the problem that your argument is circular.

Still back to the unanswered questions about the failed chi^2 test.

You keep punting back to this point, so it's safe to say it's the only thing you feel confident about. Unfortunately the notion that you either don't understand the answers or don't agree with them is not tantamount to the question not having been answered.

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

A medieval patch in the sample used for radiocarbon dating would throw off the radiocarbon dating. How is that a circular argument, I conclude you have no clue what a circular argument is.

I have provided evidence that the radiocarbon dating samples were from a patch.

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

That's evidence for my hypothesis.

 

[bobdroege7]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to conform with moderated post

This doesn't fix the problem that your argument is circular.


You keep punting back to this point, so it's safe to say it's the only thing you feel confident about. Unfortunately the notion that you either don't understand the answers or don't agree with them is not tantamount to the question not having been answered.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and reference to forum management matters

No, a circular argument would be it's a patch because it's a patch.

The argument that the sample gave bad results because it was from a medieval patch, and thus not representative of the shroud is not a circular argument.

Lastly, it's up to the defenders of the radiocarbon dating to explain chi^2 test, which indicates a lack of sufficient homogeneity in the samples, to explain how that is acceptable.

 

[JayUtah]

A medieval patch in the sample used for radiocarbon dating would throw off the radiocarbon dating. How is that a circular argument, I conclude you have no clue what a circular argument is.

The circular argument is that the patch "must" have been invisible and "must" have been missed by the experts because the carbon-14 date got the wrong answer, which is the observation the patch hypothesis was formulated to address. And yes, I know very well what a circular argument is. And I have pointed out the many you've used, without you apparently being able to understand the explanation. And we can apparently add "straw man" to the list of fallacious arguments you don't understand.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to conform with previously moderated posts/remove forum management content

No, a circular argument would be it's a patch because it's a patch.

That's one example of a circular argument. That doesn't mean your argument is not also circular. I analyzed the argument at length, but you ignored it and pretended I did something else instead.

Lastly, it's up to the defenders of the radiocarbon dating to explain chi^2 test, which indicates a lack of sufficient homogeneity in the samples, to explain how that is acceptable.

No. You beg the question of statistical homogeneity, which has been addressed. You don't get to reverse the burden of proof for your claim that the carbon-14 test should be distrusted.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

I will jump on this.

The "lack of evidence for such work."

Underlying all this discussion of the claim that there was an invisible weave or whatever is the fact that, what reason is there to think that the measurement was done on a patched section?

I mean, besides the fact that it gave a medieval date and that must be wrong, and therefore it must have been a patch?

 

[Thermal]

I will jump on this.

The "lack of evidence for such work."

Underlying all this discussion of the claim that there was an invisible weave or whatever is the fact that, what reason is there to think that the measurement was done on a patched section?

I mean, besides the fact that it gave a medieval date and that must be wrong, and therefore it must have been a patch?

I thiiiiiiink Bob is relying on the residual cotton threads on a small part of the sample, but I don't see that as damning at all. The backing had to be removed to cut the sample out of the edge. While the studies presented don't say anything about the kind of thread used to secure the backing, it is surely the most likely explanation, rather than evidence of a patch? I mean, the backing sewn on in that area is known. A patch is not. Bob has been quiet on this point and I've asked a couple times now.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Actually, the shroud has been rewoven thousands of times over the years. Not a single fiber of the original remains. It's the Shroud of Theseus.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, the shroud has been rewoven thousands of times over the years. Not a single fiber of the original remains. It's the Shroud of Theseus.

I wondered why the image was starting to look more like John Wick. Maybe in a few more years it will look like Cardi B?

Eta: I might be mistaken. If it only looks similar to the original, it would be the Shroud of Thesaurus?

 

[catsmate]

I will jump on this.

The "lack of evidence for such work."

Underlying all this discussion of the claim that there was an invisible weave or whatever is the fact that, what reason is there to think that the measurement was done on a patched section?

I mean, besides the fact that it gave a medieval date and that must be wrong, and therefore it must have been a patch?

None whatsoever. There are plenty of reasons to accept that there was no patch or repairs in the sampled area, starting with the detailed examination of the area before the cuts were made.
Meanwhile the shroudies have.......................... nothing, except a pathetically desperate need to believe.

Note how, in this thread, @bobdroege7 has changed his story several times. Patching that's invisible to examination.
Reweaving with different threads that's invisible, and looks the same under IR and UV.
Contamination that resists a bath in hot hydrochloric acid and is unnoticeable, despite being several times the mass of the underlying threads.
Fraud, for no explicable reason.

And a grasp of statistics that'd fail a fresher in remedial maths.

The failure to actually show any similar textiles from the first century.

Meanwhile @bobdroege7 has refused to address, over even acknowledge, the mass of evidence for the Lirey cloth's medieval origins; the historical paper trail, the letters of d'Arcis, the fading of the cloth's colours etc cetera.

 

[bobdroege7]

None whatsoever. There are plenty of reasons to accept that there was no patch or repairs in the sampled area, starting with the detailed examination of the area before the cuts were made.
Meanwhile the shroudies have.......................... nothing, except a pathetically desperate need to believe.

Note how, in this thread, @bobdroege7 has changed his story several times. Patching that's invisible to examination.
Reweaving with different threads that's invisible, and looks the same under IR and UV.
Contamination that resists a bath in hot hydrochloric acid and is unnoticeable, despite being several times the mass of the underlying threads.
Fraud, for no explicable reason.

And a grasp of statistics that'd fail a fresher in remedial maths.

The failure to actually show any similar textiles from the first century.

Meanwhile @bobdroege7 has refused to address, over even acknowledge, the mass of evidence for the Lirey cloth's medieval origins; the historical paper trail, the letters of d'Arcis, the fading of the cloth's colours etc cetera.

You lie, I never said the patches were invisible.

The different threads were obviously visible, that's why part of the sample was cut off.

I don't have a pathetic need to believe, I am just following the science.

Obviously, you are quite divorced from the scientific method.

 

[Thermal]

You lie, I never said the patches were invisible.

The different threads were obviously visible, that's why part of the sample was cut off.

I don't have a pathetic need to believe, I am just following the science.

Obviously, you are quite divorced from the scientific method.

Do you dismiss the idea wholesale that the thread residues were from the thread which sewed the backing on, known to be right in that area where the samples were taken? Why? They were not threads still woven into the herringbone weave, as a patch would be.

 

[JayUtah]

You lie, I never said the patches were invisible.

The different threads were obviously visible, that's why part of the sample was cut off.

But aren't you then going on to claim that cotton threads from some other alleged patch were what caused the carbon-14 to produce a date in the 13th century? The question isn't therefore whatever patching might have been seen and excluded, but what patching remained undetected by the experts whose job it was to ensure the specimen was original material. If that is your claim, then you are claiming the patch was effectively invisible.

I don't have a pathetic need to believe, I am just following the science.

Obviously, you are quite divorced from the scientific method.

You do realize that some people here are actual scientists.

 

[catsmate]

Second, just because you can not find any evidence of repairs to the shroud does not mean they were not performed, there is actual evidence that the shroud was repaired. And it is known who did some of the repairs.

I notice You're not actually providing any evidence for your claims. As usual.

Third, "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." so you are advocating scientific fraud?

Sigh, This is just pathetic, even by your standards. You are the one who'd claimed that the cloth sample was tampered with, remember?

Fourth, in the Damon paper they claim the samples were from " The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." which is not true, they lied in the paper, so it's NFG, back to the drawing board, we really have no evidence it was medieval.

Except it is true. The sample was taken from the body of the shroud, not from an edge or other unsuitable area. It was away from charred or patched areas, as the experts to examined the shroud stated.
You inability to accept awkward facts is your problem.

Still back to the unanswered questions about the failed chi^2 test.[/url]

This nonsense has been debunked, repeatedly. Your inability to understand, or accept,your errors in entirely your problem.

Yes I have, I have provided evidence for where the radiocarbon samples were taken from, from the edge of the shroud next to the corner where the Raes sample was taken.

No at the edge, inside from the edge. There are plenty of diagrams around, if You're unable to understand this fact.

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

I know you can't spell there, but can you read?

Ah, more pathetic insults to accept to wallpaper over your inability to support your beliefs.

A medieval patch in the sample used for radiocarbon dating would throw off the radiocarbon dating. How is that a circular argument, I conclude you have no clue what a circular argument is.

More attempts to distract from your errors.
Show the evidence for a patch,

I have provided evidence that the radiocarbon dating samples were from a patch.

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

That's evidence for my hypothesis.

No you haven't. You're claimed and asserted there was a patch, magically invisible to expert scrutiny, but you have failed to show evidence for it,

 

[catsmate]

You lie, I never said the patches were invisible.

Then why did multiple textiles experts miss them? WIth magnifiers ,microscopes, infra-red and ultra violet.....

The different threads were obviously visible, that's why part of the sample was cut off.

No. This is just another of your lies.

I don't have a pathetic need to believe, I am just following the science.

The science says the Lirey clother was created in the 1300s. No mythical messiahs need apply.

Obviously, you are quite divorced from the scientific method.

 

[bobdroege7]

I notice You're not actually providing any evidence for your claims. As usual.

Sigh, This is just pathetic, even by your standards. You are the one who'd claimed that the cloth sample was tampered with, remember?

Except it is true. The sample was taken from the body of the shroud, not from an edge or other unsuitable area. It was away from charred or patched areas, as the experts to examined the shroud stated.
You inability to accept awkward facts is your problem.

This nonsense has been debunked, repeatedly. Your inability to understand, or accept,your errors in entirely your problem.


No at the edge, inside from the edge. There are plenty of diagrams around, if You're unable to understand this fact.

Ah, more pathetic insults to accept to wallpaper over your inability to support your beliefs.


More attempts to distract from your errors.
Show the evidence for a patch,

No you haven't. You're claimed and asserted there was a patch, magically invisible to expert scrutiny, but you have failed to show evidence for it,

Are you denying that there was a patch?

Los Alamos National Laboratory team of nine scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the …

shroudstory.com

wait there is more

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

Where was the sample taken from again?

"On April 21, 1988, a 1cm x 7cm sample was cut from the the bottom left corner of the Shroud of Turin, from just above where a sample was cut by Gilbert Raes in 1973 and "away from any patches or charred areas."

 

[JayUtah]

Are you denying that there was a patch?

Don't reverse the burden of proof. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

You've accused people of lying when they say you claim the patch was invisible. Yet you seem to accept a fact pattern that effectively makes that your argument.

Do you claim there was, in fact, a patch? Do you claim that the experts specifically looking for patches missed this one? Do you claim that material from this patch is what caused the carbon-14 dating to be too late, heterogenous, or both?

 

[bobdroege7]

But aren't you then going on to claim that cotton threads from some other alleged patch were what caused the carbon-14 to produce a date in the 13th century? The question isn't therefore whatever patching might have been seen and excluded, but what patching remained undetected by the experts whose job it was to ensure the specimen was original material. If that is your claim, then you are claiming the patch was effectively invisible.


You do realize that some people here are actual scientists.

Do you have any evidence these experts had any input into where the shroud sample would be cut from.

STURP definitely provide input, they definitely wanted something different that what was provided. I can point out that STURP members were on both sides of the controversy.

Random sampling, which would be necessary to provide a reliable answer, was absolutely not followed. The sampling was not even close to being random. The sample that was took was found to be not representative of the whole cloth.

Yes, I am a scientist too, though now retired. But I analyzed thousands of drug products, and I never took a non-random sample.

 

[bobdroege7]

Don't reverse the burden of proof. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

You've accused people of lying when they say you claim the patch was invisible. Yet you seem to accept a fact pattern that effectively makes that your argument.

Do you claim there was, in fact, a patch? Do you claim that the experts specifically looking for patches missed this one? Do you claim that material from this patch is what caused the carbon-14 dating to be too late, heterogenous, or both?

Yes there was a patch, numerous patches, several restorations.