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

[catsmate]

Is there any evidence for a first-century origin?

None whatsoever. Of course that's the situation for biblical Jesus too.

 

[Thermal]

None whatsoever. Of course that's the situation for biblical Jesus too.

Disagreed. The subatomic particles of the shroud have been around since roughly the time of the Big Bang.

"In the beginning was the blankie, and the blankie was with god, and the blankie was god."

 

[bobdroege7]

Remember how they reacted to his debunking of their nonsense?

No. Just because you claim this, due to your desperate need for it to be true, doesn't make this true.

More debunked rubbish.

Sigh. You're repeating yourself, I dealt with this previously.

Also debunked. Stop wasting people's time repeating nonsense.

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.

Did you read this https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n90part1.pdf

There is a measurement documented in that that totally proves that it was a patch that was sent for the radiocarbon dating.

And references to numerous textile experts who say it was a patch.

And a reference to a C-14 dating service who states there are issues with dating old linen that has been handled and patched that means that the dating would be unreliable.

What is inane, is to keep defending the Damon paper. when it has been shown to be in error.

I am not responsible for your time wasting, you are in control of that.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

This is just getting confusing.

The claim is that they dated a patched section.

But as been pointed out, to use a patched section would require either conspiracy or incompetence. And there is no reason to think the ones who selected the material to date were either.

Oh, but it's an "invisible patch" that they couldn't detect

What is the evidence that there was an invisible patch?

Are you saying there is no patching on the shroud?

Huh? Who ever said that.

Now, again, what evidence is there that the 14C dating was done on a patched section?

 

[JayUtah]

There is a measurement documented in that that totally proves that it was a patch that was sent for the radiocarbon dating.

But according to you, the cloth that was sent for carbon-14 dating was not anything that was on the shroud but was instead something the archbishop of Turin substituted in a back room. Do you understand that you cannot simultaneously make the claim regarding the archbishop and then also post evidence from other examinations of shroud material and imagine that they add up to some sort of coherent whole?

And references to numerous textile experts who say it was a patch.

Okay, one more time...

In response to your accusation that people are lying with respect to what you claim, I asked these questions :—

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?

to which your only semi-answer was,

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

It is a bad-faith argument to accuse people of lying when they are making good-faith efforts to ascertain what you are actually claiming. Acknowledging that the Turin shroud in general exhibits clear evidence of patching throughout its life span does not provide answers to the specific questions I am asking. Therefore I will ask them again in hopes of finally eliciting some coherence and honesty from you.

1. Do you claim there was a patch?
   Ostensibly you've answered yes to this question, but the question specifically wants to know whether you are claiming the material excised for carbon-14 dating was a patch. I don't want you to wave your hands generally at the history of the shroud.
2. Do you claim the experts specifically looking to avoid a patch missed the patch that was allegedly excised for carbon-14 dating?
3. Do you claim that material from this alleged patch is what caused the carbon-14 dating to be for the wrong time, or to make the results heterogeneous, or both?

An explicit yes or no answer to each of these questions would be appreciated.

 

[catsmate]

Did you read this https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n90part1.pdf

There is a measurement documented in that that totally proves that it was a patch that was sent for the radiocarbon dating.

No, there isn't. This has been debunked.

And references to numerous textile experts who say it was a patch.

Let's see this reports. By people who actually examined the cloth and know what they're talking about.

And a reference to a C-14 dating service who states there are issues with dating old linen that has been handled and patched that means that the dating would be unreliable.

Irrelevant. The Lirey cloth's samples were exhaustively decontaminated and the sampled area was not part of a patch.

What is inane, is to keep defending the Damon paper. when it has been shown to be in error.

No it hasn't. You repetitively posted shroudie nonsense has no value. The radiocarbon dating has stood up to scrutiny.

I am not responsible for your time wasting, you are in control of that.

You keep posting nonsense, leavened with incompetence and outright lies. I will keep exposing it.

 

[catsmate]

This is just getting confusing.

The claim is that they dated a patched section.

But as been pointed out, to use a patched section would require either conspiracy or incompetence. And there is no reason to think the ones who selected the material to date were either.

Oh, but it's an "invisible patch" that they couldn't detect

What is the evidence that there was an invisible patch?

Are you saying there is no patching on the shroud?

Huh? Who ever said that.

Now, again, what evidence is there that the 14C dating was done on a patched section?

It's the classic conspiracy nut nonsense, complete with the circular reasoning and Gish Galloping.

 

[KAJ]

But according to you, the cloth that was sent for carbon-14 dating was not anything that was on the shroud but was instead something the archbishop of Turin substituted in a back room. Do you understand that you cannot simultaneously make the claim regarding the archbishop and then also post evidence from other examinations of shroud material and imagine that they add up to some sort of coherent whole?


Okay, one more time...

In response to your accusation that people are lying with respect to what you claim, I asked these questions :—

to which your only semi-answer was,


It is a bad-faith argument to accuse people of lying when they are making good-faith efforts to ascertain what you are actually claiming. Acknowledging that the Turin shroud in general exhibits clear evidence of patching throughout its life span does not provide answers to the specific questions I am asking. Therefore I will ask them again in hopes of finally eliciting some coherence and honesty from you.

1. Do you claim there was a patch?
   Ostensibly you've answered yes to this question, but the question specifically wants to know whether you are claiming the material excised for carbon-14 dating was a patch. I don't want you to wave your hands generally at the history of the shroud.
2. Do you claim the experts specifically looking to avoid a patch missed the patch that was allegedly excised for carbon-14 dating?
3. Do you claim that material from this alleged patch is what caused the carbon-14 dating to be for the wrong time, or to make the results heterogeneous, or both?

An explicit yes or no answer to each of these questions would be appreciated.

Careful. As I pointed out in my post #341 anything (that I can think of) is heterogeneous to some extent, whether the heterogeneity is between _{samples or laboratories - which cannot be distinguished in the Damon et al paper. The real question is whether the heterogeneity is so great as to make the results not fit for purpose.}

 

[JayUtah]

Careful. As I pointed out in my post #341 anything (that I can think of) is heterogeneous to some extent, whether the heterogeneity is between _{samples or laboratories - which cannot be distinguished in the Damon et al paper. The real question is whether the heterogeneity is so great as to make the results not fit for purpose.}

I agree that the claims of heterogeneity in the radiocarbon dating results are unfounded to the extent they purport to discredit the results. That's not my purpose in asking these questions. I'm asking @bobdroege7 simply to state what his argument is. He has claimed that the carbon-14 dating is too heterogeneous to be credible. There is certainly a statistics debate over whether that's true. But he has also claimed various causes for that heterogeneity. I hope to nail him down on which cause he means to pursue.

He originally claimed the carbon-14 results were heterogeneous because the archbishop of Turin replaced the actual specimens from the shroud with some other cloth, presumably of medieval origin. The claim is that the archbishop did this in order to sabotage the date and thereby suggest that the shroud was fake. According to this hypothesis, the bishop understood that the depiction on the shroud would or should have been understood as an image made by a living person who had not yet died. And if the shroud were authenticated via radiocarbon dating, then this would cast doubt on the resurrection story because it could be interpreted as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not dead at the time the shroud was applied. The suggestion that Jesus did not die but was presented as such by his followers in order to fake a resurrection claim is a longstanding conspiracy theory.

But now he seems to claim that the material in the specimen that was dated by the carbon-14 method did indeed come from the shroud (and was not replaced by the archbishop), but came from an area containing a patch. I am attempting to ascertain whether he claims in this version of his story that the material in the patch is what he thinks caused the unexpected results in the dating. That could mean that it was responsible for the heterogeneity by the argument that the different trials alternatively tested original materials and material from the patch. That could mean that the overall medieval date was due to the tests having been made on a patch that was applied in the 13th century. But all the arguments in favor of a patch require that the tested material—and those examined from the shroud at different times by different people looking for patches—all have come from the same source. The archbishop story moots the entire enterprise of scanning the shroud for patches, so at most one of these hypotheses can be true. They're mutually exclusive.

So far it has simply been impossible to get @bobdroege7 to state a coherent case. Once we nail down what his actual claims are, then we can examine them honestly. But insofar as both his major alternatives are attempts to explain the alleged heterogeneity in the results, you can certainly make the case that none of it holds due the fallacy of subversion of support: if there is no actual anomaly, then there is no need to present and defend any hypothesis to attempt to explain an anomaly.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, there isn't. This has been debunked.

Let's see this reports. By people who actually examined the cloth and know what they're talking about.

Irrelevant. The Lirey cloth's samples were exhaustively decontaminated and the sampled area was not part of a patch.

No it hasn't. You repetitively posted shroudie nonsense has no value. The radiocarbon dating has stood up to scrutiny.

You keep posting nonsense, leavened with incompetence and outright lies. I will keep exposing it.

You are resorting to ad hominem attacks, which means you don't have a case.

 

[bobdroege7]

Careful. As I pointed out in my post #341 anything (that I can think of) is heterogeneous to some extent, whether the heterogeneity is between _{samples or laboratories - which cannot be distinguished in the Damon et al paper. The real question is whether the heterogeneity is so great as to make the results not fit for purpose.}

Yes, everything is heterogeneous to an extent, all the samples tested show heterogeneity to some extent, but for the shroud examples it was too high.

Then you look for a reason.

And then you find that the sampled area was part of a patch or a reweave.

Then you find that there was cotton woven into the sampled pieces.

Which makes the samples not fit for purpose.

 

[JayUtah]

And then you find that the sampled area was part of a patch or a reweave.

Then you find that there was cotton woven into the sampled pieces.

Why does that matter if the archbishop swtiched the specimen? Why are you steadfastly refusing to answer my questions, which have no other purpose that simply to find out what you think happened?

 

[Thermal]

Did you read this https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n90part1.pdf

I was looking at it. They acknowledge big and bold that the sample was taken from the area where the Holland cloth backing was attached. Which had to be removed to get the sample. And there were a few (and just a few) stray cotton fibers.

Really not seeing why these fibers are not assumed to be stray residues from the thread which sewed the backing on.

 

[bobdroege7]

I agree that the claims of heterogeneity in the radiocarbon dating results are unfounded to the extent they purport to discredit the results. That's not my purpose in asking these questions. I'm asking @bobdroege7 simply to state what his argument is. He has claimed that the carbon-14 dating is too heterogeneous to be credible. There is certainly a statistics debate over whether that's true. But he has also claimed various causes for that heterogeneity. I hope to nail him down on which cause he means to pursue.

He originally claimed the carbon-14 results were heterogeneous because the archbishop of Turin replaced the actual specimens from the shroud with some other cloth, presumably of medieval origin. The claim is that the archbishop did this in order to sabotage the date and thereby suggest that the shroud was fake. According to this hypothesis, the bishop understood that the depiction on the shroud would or should have been understood as an image made by a living person who had not yet died. And if the shroud were authenticated via radiocarbon dating, then this would cast doubt on the resurrection story because it could be interpreted as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not dead at the time the shroud was applied. The suggestion that Jesus did not die but was presented as such by his followers in order to fake a resurrection claim is a longstanding conspiracy theory.

But now he seems to claim that the material in the specimen that was dated by the carbon-14 method did indeed come from the shroud (and was not replaced by the archbishop), but came from an area containing a patch. I am attempting to ascertain whether he claims in this version of his story that the material in the patch is what he thinks caused the unexpected results in the dating. That could mean that it was responsible for the heterogeneity by the argument that the different trials alternatively tested original materials and material from the patch. That could mean that the overall medieval date was due to the tests having been made on a patch that was applied in the 13th century. But all the arguments in favor of a patch require that the tested material—and those examined from the shroud at different times by different people looking for patches—all have come from the same source. The archbishop story moots the entire enterprise of scanning the shroud for patches, so at most one of these hypotheses can be true. They're mutually exclusive.

So far it has simply been impossible to get @bobdroege7 to state a coherent case. Once we nail down what his actual claims are, then we can examine them honestly. But insofar as both his major alternatives are attempts to explain the alleged heterogeneity in the results, you can certainly make the case that none of it holds due the fallacy of subversion of support: if there is no actual anomaly, then there is no need to present and defend any hypothesis to attempt to explain an anomaly.

My claim is that the Damon paper does not produce a valid age for the shroud.

I said the Archbishop switched the samples because you asked me "what do you think happened?"

To explain the "alleged heterogeneity"

But it is not alleged, it's factual. It's documented in the Damon paper. They published the results.

 

[JayUtah]

My claim is that the Damon paper does not produce a valid age for the shroud.

I didn't ask about the Damon paper.

I said the Archbishop switched the samples because you asked me "what do you think happened?"

And if you think that's what happened, then how can you reconcile that with the mutually exclusive hypothesis regarding the patch?

To explain the "alleged heterogeneity"

You've advanced two hypotheses to explain the alleged heterogeneity. They are mutually exclusive. Will you either attempt to reconcile them or tell us which one you're advocating? Since you jump right to calling people liars when they try to pin you down, it would seem that it's important for you to do so.

But it is not alleged, it's factual. It's documented in the Damon paper. They published the results.

I didn't ask about the significance of the purported heterogeneity. I asked about what you are claiming caused it.

 

[bobdroege7]

I was looking at it. They acknowledge big and bold that the sample was taken from the area where the Holland cloth backing was attached. Which had to be removed to get the sample. And there were a few (and just a few) stray cotton fibers.

Really not seeing why these fibers are not assumed to be stray residues from the thread which sewed the backing on.

I'm not sure, but I would think the backing cloth covers the entire shroud.

Those are not the threads I am talking about. The ones I am talking about cotton woven into the shroud sample as found by the folks at Oxford.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure, but I would think the backing cloth covers the entire shroud.

Those are not the threads I am talking about. The ones I am talking about cotton woven into the shroud sample as found by the folks at Oxford.

Regarding those, though, they are atypical.of the rest of the threads. It may be that a different thread was used to stitch up some unraveling. Ok. But then wouldn't that just as well indicate that the weave material without the cotton was in fact original, and that's what they radiocarbon tested?

Eta: I'm also not clear on why any near flawless patching was done on this insignificant corner, when the other patches are comparatively clumsy and visible to the naked eye?

 

[bobdroege7]

You do realize that some people here are actual scientists.

Yes, and they are human, and can make mistakes from time to time.

 

[Mojo]

Regarding those, though, they are atypical.of the rest of the threads. It may be that a different thread was used to stitch up some unraveling. Ok. But then wouldn't that just as well indicate that the weave material without the cotton was in fact original, and that's what they radiocarbon tested?

No, because that doesn't give the result bobdroege7 wants.

 

[bobdroege7]

Regarding those, though, they are atypical.of the rest of the threads. It may be that a different thread was used to stitch up some unraveling. Ok. But then wouldn't that just as well indicate that the weave material without the cotton was in fact original, and that's what they radiocarbon tested?

Eta: I'm also not clear on why any near flawless patching was done on this insignificant corner, when the other patches are comparatively clumsy and visible to the naked eye?

There was a lot of patching done at various times, the ones I can document were from the 16th to the 19th centuries.

Some were better at their work than others.