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

[catsmate]

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.

Repetitively posting the same lies doesn't make them true.

Do you actually bother to read the material you seagull post here? Or just link to whatever crap a google search suggests might support your opinions?

Hall didn't state that the cotton fibres were woven into the cloth. This appears to be deliberate misrepresentation on your part. He states that a small number of cotton threads were found.

It was Gilbert Raes who claimed that the cotton fibres were "inside the threads" of the linen. Note that even he, a shroudie, doesn't claim that the cotton was woven into the cloth. Further he was referring to an examation performed in 1973, some fifteen years before the sampling for radiocarbon dating, on a different sample....

Finally, there's actually no evidence that the threads were, in fact, cotton as no proper analysis of the threads was carried out.
Doug Farr, who used MassSpec on the fibres extracted from the Raes sample stated:

Both positive and negative SIMS spectra show simple, low mass species expected for cellulose and other organic fibres like cotton. Impurities detected were Na, F and Cl. No consistent significant differences were observed in the surface chemistry between the thin and fuzzy ends of the fibre.

So, no evidence either way. Of course Bob Villarreal deliberately misrepresented Farr's results.

Now, later a better test regime was carried out. (How many here remember doing FTIR analyses?)
This would show differences between cotton and linen (due to the differences in C=O and C-O double and single bonds. Kevin Hubbard carried out such analyses (and they were presented at a shroudie conference more than a decade ago, curiously @bobdroege7 seems to have missed this data in his googleings..... ).
And the result: the threads could not be distinguished as either cotton or linen.

So, to summarise:
1. there is actually no evidence of cotton threads being present.
2. If they were present, which could happen, no-one has seen them woven into the cloth.
3. And if they were there and dates from (say) 1300 they would need to make up the entire sample in order to given the radiocarbon date obtained, and yet the examination of the sample showed it to be linen, possibly with a few stray cotton threads (≪1%) and insufficient to alter the dating.

The 'C level' summary: @bobdroege7 is wrong again. The overwhelming evidence still supports the shroud being created around 1300CE.

And, while we're here @bobdroege7 when will you be posting you evidence for the use of the herringbone weave in first century Palestine? Your refutation of the D'Arcis evidence?

 

[catsmate]

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

You should apply that principle to yourself and fix your numerous errors.

 

[catsmate]

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.

And yet all the patching and repairs on the Lirey cloth are obvious. Except the magically invisible one where your beliefs need it to be.

 

[JayUtah]

Post 619 of this thread.

Nice try.

I raised the question again in post #794 and your answer in #797 made no mention of any supposed retraction.

 

[catsmate]

I think its fair game to question this issue, as long as we are reasonable about it. I mean, they had textile experts on site when the samples were taken to make sure exactly something like this *didnt* happen.

I get that the church wouldn't want the sample to be coming from across the face, on the off chance this was the real deal, so they picked an inobtrusive place to sample, so as not to deface it. OK, fine. But literally right on the edge where they knew foreign thread was woven in after the fact? Maybe they had no other real choice, but still...

On a fabric sample, an edge is a logical place to cut away a sample.

 

[catsmate]

OK, I will answer your three questions, and I remind you and the rest, I never claimed the patch was invisible. Those who have made that claim are indeed lying, and I can name names. If the shoe fits, wear it.

1. Yes, I claim there is a patch where the radiocarbon samples were taken.

2. Yes, but you need to support your claim that experts actually looked for patches in the area that was cut off for sampling.

Read the radiocarbon reports

The patching was pretty good,

Where? Just that patch? Why, when the others are obvious.

and existing photos of the samples have been examined by experts who say that there is evidence of patching in the area.

Citations required. And proper examinations.

I can't tell, but then, I am not a textile expert. So if there were experts examining the area sampled, they missed the patch.

Right..... Multiple experts, using magnifiers and microscopes missed the patch. And it hasn't shown up in subsequent examinations, despite the use of techniques vastly more sophisticated that any dreamed of in the 1300s.

Absolute nonsense.

It is possible that experts were not consulted when it was decided to cut the sample.

But that simply isn't true. But you haven't bothered to read the accounts, have you?

 

[catsmate]

Well, well, well, then they were putting words in my mouth.

Science is not about proof, and I have provided evidence for a patch.

No you haven't. You've made the same unsupported assertions time and time again.

 

[Thermal]

On a fabric sample, an edge is a logical place to cut away a sample.

Right, and I understand the pragmatism. They don't want to deface it more than is necessary and all that. You go for the most discrete and least invasive area, in this case along the edge. But by the same token, a piece of the backing thread would seem useful for differentiating later-added medieval thread from original (or in this case, earlier medieval).

 

[catsmate]

Right, and I understand the pragmatism. They don't want to deface it more than is necessary and all that. You go for the most discrete and least invasive area, in this case along the edge. But by the same token, a piece of the backing thread would seem useful for differentiating later-added medieval thread from original (or in this case, earlier medieval).

You mean the backing cloth? That's a Holland cloth and easily distinguishable from the 'face' cloth. It's a very difficult weave for a start. The cloth was mounted on it about two centuries after it's fabrication in the 1300s.
Though there are actually two backing cloths, one of silk.

 

[Thermal]

You mean the backing cloth? That's a Holland cloth and easily distinguishable from the 'face' cloth. It's a very difficult weave for a start. The cloth was mounted on it about two centuries after it's fabrication in the 1300s.
Though there are actually two backing cloths, one of silk.

Not the cloth itself; the thread used to attach it to the shroud. That's what I would think would be the reasonable source of a few stray cotton fibers. I mean, thread had to be cut away in exactly that area which connected the backing to the shroud. It seems reasonable to expect some fine residual cotton left over (too small for the naked eye to see when the sample was taken), and it's detection later would actually help in identifying the original shroud linen from later repairs and backing.

 

[catsmate]

Not the cloth itself; the thread used to attach it to the shroud. That's what I would think would be the reasonable source of a few stray cotton fibers. I mean, thread had to be cut away in exactly that area which connected the backing to the shroud. It seems reasonable to expect some fine residual cotton left over (too small for the naked eye to see when the sample was taken), and it's detection later would actually help in identifying the original shroud linen from later repairs and backing.

Ah that's plausible.
I will see if there's anything about the connecting threads.


I am curious why @bobdroege7 is so obsessed with the presence of cotton, the stuff has been cultivated for millennia.

 

[pgwenthold]

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?

And having perfected the technique, no one ever does it again.

 

[bobdroege7]

You appear not to understand what "ad hominem" actually means.

I have demonstrated that your supposed "arguments" are rubbish, not standing up to scrutiny, that you simply don't understand the material you liberally seagull in this forum.

So, why not state, clearly and coherently, what is your theory regarding the Lirey cloth. And likewise how, you believe, the radiocarbon dating was in error. No nonsense about magic patches, try and create a cohesive narrative.

Yes, I do, you reject the arguments by several PhD scholars because they are as you say, "shroudies."

There is a difference between declaring my arguments are rubbish, and actually demonstrating that.

The shroud of turin is older than what the radiocarbon dating declares, because the sampling was bogus.

 

[bobdroege7]

And having perfected the technique, no one ever does it again.

Get your linen suit mended here.

French Weaving

French Weaving - French Weaving Suit Repair - Suit Repair - WithoutATrace.com - Reweaving, Leather & Handbag Services – (800) 475-4922

www.withoutatrace.com

 

[bobdroege7]

Nice try.

I raised the question again in post #794 and your answer in #797 made no mention of any supposed retraction.

So I have to mention the retraction in every post?

OK, it wasn't the Archbishop in the study with the typewriter.

or

It wasn't the Archbishop in the Sala Capitolare with the stainless steel tubes.

 

[Thermal]

The shroud of turin is older than what the radiocarbon dating declares, because the sampling was bogus.

That really doesn't follow, in any interpretation. The shroud could be damn near the same age. The patch pieces might not have been new material, but literally could have been older than the shroud itself, and picked because they visually blended well.

The only thing you could conclude, even taking all your speculation at face value, is that the RC dating may not be accurate. It doesn't at all shoe-in the main shroud as being significantly older.

 

[JayUtah]

So I have to mention the retraction in every post?

If you want it to be generally believed that you retracted a claim, you have to retract the claim. Disguising a retraction as some sort of pithy remark from which people are supposed to glean your true intent is childish. To wit :—

OK, it wasn't the Archbishop in the study with the typewriter.

or

It wasn't the Archbishop in the Sala Capitolare with the stainless steel tubes.

Are you retracting the claim that the archbishop of Turin switched the radiocarbon dating specimen? Yes or no.

 

[JayUtah]

The shroud of turin is older than what the radiocarbon dating declares, because the sampling was bogus.

No.

Even if the sampling was "bogus" and the radiocarbon dating is not reliable, the claim that the shroud dates to any time is an affirmative claim that must be supported with affirmative evidence. It cannot be a default presumption.

When do you think the image on the shroud was created, and what is your evidence for that date?

 

[catsmate]

Yes, I do, you reject the arguments by several PhD scholars because they are as you say, "shroudies."

Sigh. No I don't. I identified ten as shroudies, to demonstrate their bias, and then demonstrated the flaws in their claims.

There is a difference between declaring my arguments are rubbish, and actually demonstrating that.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that a patch, amazingly invisible to past and present expert examination, exists. You have failed to do this, merely repetitively making an unsupported assertion that this patch exists.

The shroud of turin is older than what the radiocarbon dating declares, because the sampling was bogus.

Wrong.
Delusional and magical thinking at it's worst.


I note that you continue to refuse to address the other reasons to accept the Lirey cloth is of medieval origin, e.g., the weave, the historical commentary, the artistic style, the fading of the colours, et cetera.


It's a medieval fake, get over it.

 

[catsmate]

Get your linen suit mended here.

French Weaving

French Weaving - French Weaving Suit Repair - Suit Repair - WithoutATrace.com - Reweaving, Leather & Handbag Services – (800) 475-4922

www.withoutatrace.com

A technique that didn't exist in the Middle Ages and is obvious on examination, especially from behind.