• 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?"

bobdroege7 said:
Do you have any evidence these experts had any input into where the shroud sample would be cut from.
Click to expand...
Do not dodge my questions by asking your own.

bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you have any training or experience in any forensic science?
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just wow!!

If your trying to date the Shroud of Turin you take a sample from the shroud you don't take a "random" sample because all you are testing is one item! The Shroud!!

Besides a "random" sample taken from the shroud just might damage it in areas you don't want to damage it in!

If your examining / testing one item you take a sample etc., from that item you don't need to randomize anything.

If you are testing, for example to see if a cup of tea is poisoned you test that cup of tea not a random sample.

Just wow!
 
Pacal said:
Just wow!!

If your trying to date the Shroud of Turin you take a sample from the shroud you don't take a "random" sample because all you are testing is one item! The Shroud!!

Besides a "random" sample taken from the shroud just might damage it in areas you don't want to damage it in!

If your examining / testing one item you take a sample etc., from that item you don't need to randomize anything.

If you are testing, for example to see if a cup of tea is poisoned you test that cup of tea not a random sample.

Just wow!
Click to expand...
Also, if you are taking a sample to date an artefact such as the shroud, you don't want to take it from a random area, you want to take a sample that is "away from any patches or charred areas."
 
bobdroege7 said:
Are you denying that there was a patch?

shroudstory.com

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 shroudstory.com

wait there is more


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."
Click to expand...
Oh no, not again.
Repetitively posting the same PDF over and over again is childish. The sample was cut from the fabric of the Lirey cloth, and no amount of whining and arm waving alters that.

Now, on to Villarreal's nonsense.
Firstly fixating on his association with LANL doesn't impress me, having had a cousin who worked there for decades. I handled a Scarab when I visisted.....

Especially given there was no "LANL team" (he had to backtrack after his presentation at the shroudies conference) and he didn't use laboratory equipment for his "analysis".
Unlike you I understand what FTIR actually is, how it works, and its flaws.

As a side-note, Villarreal's work was basically the same as Adler in '02 and equally unconvincing.

Now what did Villarreal actually do? He was looking for cotton, as be believed (as some shroudies do) that there was a magically invisible cotton patch or reweave in the area selected for the radiocarbon testing. A patch that evaded the detailed scrutiny of the textile experts with their tools, and which didn't appear different under variant light sources.

Nonsense of course, but desperation does things to the mind.

Firstly Villarreal obtained some threads (three in fact), allegedly from the shroud radiocarbon samples but of no confirmed provenance.
For actual scientists this the first red flag.

Villarreal performed Fourier Transform spectroscopy on these threads in the infra-red area of the spectrum.
  • FTIR is a lovely technique, much beloved in analytic work because (when applied properly) it's wonderfully accurate, works with tiny samples(which aren't destroyed in the process like many other techniques) and can differentiate beyond elemental composition (i.e. it can differentiate C-O and C=O bonding, which is very handy).
He then created a number of (alleged) graphs comparing the spectra of different threads, claimed that this showed some of the threads were cotton, therefore there was a cotton patch (that those aforesaid textile experts missed), therefore the radiocarbon dating was wrong, therefore the cloth was the genuine shroud of a genuine Jesus!!!
And the audience, being shroudies, lapped this nonsense up.

I've mentioned the first problem with his "analysis" the lack of evidence the threads were from the Lirey cloth. The second is his supposed 'standards' to which he compared his results, before deciding cotton was present. Villarreal failed to give the provenance of these "standards' (red flag) and independent examination shows they really don't resemble the IR spectra for linen or cotton.
Oh dear.

To summarise: the portrayed analytical results are worthless. In fact they have the same problems as the Raes' FTIR results (debunked by me here) with the added problem of a vastly smaller sample and even more dubious provenance.

So, despite the assertions of @bobdroege7 there is no evidence for a magic cotton patch or reweave that was missed by the textile experts and deranged the radiocarbon dating.

8.7-RADIOCARBON-DATING-1-768x482.jpg
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
Do you have any evidence these experts had any input into where the shroud sample would be cut from.
Click to expand...
Yes. Do some reading. They were also quite happy that the sample was representative of the cloth. Do you have evidence otherwise?
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
STURP were, and perhaps are (I think a couple of them are still alive) idiots. That'd why they were sidelined.
bobdroege7 said:
Random sampling, which would be necessary to provide a reliable answer, was absolutely not followed.
Click to expand...
THe owners didn't want their cloth mutilated too much.
bobdroege7 said:
The sampling was not even close to being random.
Click to expand...
Random sampling isn't needed when the sample is agreed to representative of the whole.

bobdroege7 said:
The sample that was took was found to be not representative of the whole cloth.
Click to expand...
An assertion by you which you have singularly failed to support,other than with handwaving about invisible patches.
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, I am a scientist too, though now retired. But I analyzed thousands of drug products, and I never took a non-random sample.
Click to expand...
Right...... :rolleyes:
 
Mojo said:
Are you claiming that the sample was taken from a patched area?
Click to expand...
And not just any patched area, a patch that fooled several experts and detailed examinations....
And not just back in '88, all subsequent examinations of the sampled area,with improving techniques, have failed to find any evidence of a patch.
 
catsmate said:
...snip..

THe owners didn't want their cloth mutilated too much.

...snip...
Click to expand...
Can you imagine it - "we have randomly selected an area to cut out for testing, yeah I know it's in the middle of the face but what can you do it has to be random" or "we have randomly selected an area to cut out for testing, yeah I know it's where the shroud has been patched but what can you do it has to be random"
 
catsmate said:
And not just any patched area, a patch that fooled several experts and detailed examinations....
And not just back in '88, all subsequent examinations of the sampled area,with improving techniques,
have failed to find any evidence of a patch.
Click to expand...
In other words you are admitting it's an incredibly good patch since it has eluded people for so long. :boxedin:
 
Darat said:
Can you imagine it - "we have randomly selected an area to cut out for testing, yeah I know it's in the middle of the face but what can you do it has to be random" or "we have randomly selected an area to cut out for testing, yeah I know it's where the shroud has been patched but what can you do it has to be random"
Click to expand...
Some years ago I was peripherally involved in a court case where textile analysis, or more specifically thread analysis, became rather important. The thread in question was part of a tapestry and the subject of a court case pertaining to a very large sum of money. Getting a centimetre of the thread, snipped from a tucked-in end, took several weeks of legal mumbulations and around a hundred thousand in fees.
 
Mojo said:
But not, apparently, an invisible patch. Just one that nobody could see.
Click to expand...
Ah ha! Obviously the Lirey shroud was enchanted with Pasing Unseen. Or perhaps impregnated with nano-circutrry causing a Somebody Else's Problem field effect.


Really all this prattling on about patches, reweaving and cotton is some much nonsense, a distraction from reality. Why would the presence of cotton be significant? Given it was available in the 1300s and indeed for centuries earlier.

And even if we accepted the radiocarbon dating was unreliable, and no rational person would do so, there is other evidence (which @bobdroege7 repeatedly refuses to address) demonstrating the medieval origins of the Lirey cloth.
 
catsmate said:
Yes. Do some reading. They were also quite happy that the sample was representative of the cloth. Do you have evidence otherwise?

STURP were, and perhaps are (I think a couple of them are still alive) idiots. That'd why they were sidelined.

THe owners didn't want their cloth mutilated too much.

Random sampling isn't needed when the sample is agreed to representative of the whole.


An assertion by you which you have singularly failed to support,other than with handwaving about invisible patches.

Right...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes I do.


Walter McCrone was part of STURP, is he an idiot too?

The sample was found to be not representative of the whole, that is why it failed the chi^2 test.

And Oxford found cotton in their representative sample of a linen shroud.

Gilbert Raes found cotton in the sample he was given, and that sample was right next to the samples provided for radiocarbon dating.

Keep on claiming I am not providing evidence that the Damon paper has been debunked.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes I do.


Walter McCrone was part of STURP, is he an idiot too?
Click to expand...
Remember how they reacted to his debunking of their nonsense?
bobdroege7 said:
The sample was found to be not representative of the whole
Click to expand...
No. Just because you claim this, due to your desperate need for it to be true, doesn't make this true.
bobdroege7 said:
, that is why it failed the chi^2 test.
Click to expand...
More debunked rubbish.
bobdroege7 said:
And Oxford found cotton in their representative sample of a linen shroud.
Click to expand...
Sigh. You're repeating yourself, I dealt with this previously.
bobdroege7 said:
Gilbert Raes found cotton in the sample he was given, and that sample was right next to the samples provided for radiocarbon dating.
Click to expand...
Also debunked. Stop wasting people's time repeating nonsense.
bobdroege7 said:
Keep on claiming I am not providing evidence that the Damon paper has been debunked.
Click to expand...
Repetitively claiming that shroudies have "debunked" the radiocarbon dating of the cloth doesn't make it true. That's magical thinking at it's most inane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom