• 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?"

catsmate said:
It's deja vu all over again.....

View attachment 59266
Click to expand...
"What's happening? Excuse me, who am I? Hello? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Calm down, get a grip now... Oh! This is an interesting sensation, what is it? It's a sort of...yawning, tingling sensation in my...my...well, I suppose I’d better start finding names for things if I want to make any headway in what for the sake of what I shall call an argument I shall call the world, so let’s call it my stomach. So, a yawning tingling sensation in my stomach Good. Ooooh, it’s getting quite strong. And hey, what about this whistling, roaring sound going past what I’m suddenly going to call my head? That can be... Wind! Is that a good name? Oh er, It’ll do... perhaps I can find a better name for it later when I've found out what it’s for because there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot of it. Hey! What's this thing? This... let's call it a tail. Yeah! Tail. Hey! I can really thrash it about pretty good, can’t I? Wow! Wow! Hey doesn’t seem to achieve much but I'll probably find out what it's for later on. Now, have I built up any coherent picture of things yet? No. Oh hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I'm quite dizzy with anticipation... Or is it the wind? Hey! There really is a lot of that now, isn't there? And wow! What’s this thing suddenly coming toward me very fast? Very, very fast. So big and flat and wide it needs a big wide-sounding word like ...ow...ound...round...ground! That’s it! Ground! I wonder if it’ll be friendly?"
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because the presence of cotton weaved into a linen cloth indicates that the area was rewoven or patched.

And "so obsessed" is an ad hom.
 
JayUtah said:
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 :—


Are you retracting the claim that the archbishop of Turin switched the radiocarbon dating specimen? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
For your avatar, asked and answered.

I'll say he did not, but he had the opportunity to do so.
 
I'm no expert in ancient textiles, but I'm really starting to wonder about the odds of taking a 1300 year old shroud that was kind of decomposing, then making a patch with brand new medieval linen... and have it be invisible?
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: A technique that didn't exist in the Middle Ages and is obvious on examination, especially from behind.
Click to expand...
Obviously you don't know that for a fact.

www.academia.edu

FURTHER EMPIRICAL DATA INDICATING REPAIRS IN THE C-14 SAMPLE AREA OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN

This article revises and updates several previous versions presented at conferences in 2000, 2017 and 2019. My late wife, Sue Benford, and I first hypothesized in 2000 the reason that the 1988 C-14 results produced a range of AD 1260-1390 was that
www.academia.edu

See page 19, look at the photos of the Zurich sample and see if you can spot the repairs.
 
JayUtah said:
When you can't give a straight answer to a simple question, you don't get to stomp and whine when it seems like people are misrepresenting you.
Click to expand...
Your avatar is berating me, you can consider me a hostile witness.

I can stomp and whine all I want when people call me a liar, when they misrepresent what I have posted.

I had already answered the question, you are badgering me.
 
Thermal said:
I'm no expert in ancient textiles, but I'm really starting to wonder about the odds of taking a 1300 year old shroud that was kind of decomposing, then making a patch with brand new medieval linen... and have it be invisible?
Click to expand...
Me too, but the threads used in the patch was dyed to make it look less visible.
 
catsmate said:
Sigh. No I don't. I identified ten as shroudies, to demonstrate their bias, and then demonstrated the flaws in their claims.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
It has been identified as a patch by

David Pearson of French Tailors in Columbus Ohio, who was not told the photos were of the shroud sample sent to Zurich. Definitely not a "shroudie."

According to

"According to Peter South of the lab, “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past” (“Rogue Fibres found in the Shroud,” 1988:13)"

That's Peter South of the Oxford labs, not a "shroudie."

How about the guy who cut the sample

"13 Riggi di Numana, who cut the Shroud C-14 sample used in the testing, remarked that, I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud (from the same place that provided taken in 1973 by Prof. Raes). This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric and could have led to erroneous readings in the dating experiment (my emphasis) (Riggi di Numana, 1988, pg. 182). The question is: were there perhaps more foreign fibers that existed? Remember, only a visual inspection and a simplistic optical device were used. Riggi di Numana, while discussing how for public exhibitions a pole was inserted in the side from which the C-14 sample was taken, wrote, This wear and tear made major repairs necessary , which can still be seen today in the upper corners both left and right – repairs which required the addition of new fabric by skilled seamstresses to reinforce the shreds of material from the original (my emphases) (Riggi di Numana, 1988, pp. 59-60). And while discussing the stitching that joined the Shroud to its backing cloth, Riggi commented, But what is certain, is that the colour of the thread used for this stitching blends in perfectly with the threads of the Shroud itself, and being no thicker than warp or weft, it cannot be detected with the naked eye […]. It would have been interesting to know more about these – whether for example they were unraveled from the Shroud itself, or from the fragments cut off from the edges during repairs and adjustments, or how, in the case of a different origin, a thread was found that blended so well with the fibres of the Shroud, changing colour as a result of the ageing process in such a way as to be completely invisible (Riggi di Numana, 1988, pp. 66-67).

www.academia.edu

FURTHER EMPIRICAL DATA INDICATING REPAIRS IN THE C-14 SAMPLE AREA OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN

This article revises and updates several previous versions presented at conferences in 2000, 2017 and 2019. My late wife, Sue Benford, and I first hypothesized in 2000 the reason that the 1988 C-14 results produced a range of AD 1260-1390 was that
www.academia.edu
 
JayUtah said:
Grow up.


Or so you apparently want people to think. I'm trying to have a serious discussion while you seem to want to be cute.
Click to expand...
Then respond to my arguments.

And refrain from comments like "grow up"

Cause it makes you look like the juvenile one.
 
catsmate said:
Read the radiocarbon reports


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


Citations required. And proper examinations.


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.


But that simply isn't true. But you haven't bothered to read the accounts, have you?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could cite those radiocarbon reports unless you mean the Damon paper.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Then respond to my arguments.
Click to expand...
I have been.

Earlier you brought up the Qur'an account of Jesus' crucifixion, which underscores the claim that Jesus did not die. You did this in connection with your now-conceded claims regarding the archbishop of Turin. What was your point in quoting the Qur'an, and has that point now also been abandoned?

You claim that if we cannot rely on the radiocarbon dating of the shroud to the 13th century, we must conclude that it is older. That does not logically follow. I asked you when you think the image on the shroud was created, and what the evidence would be of that date. You did not answer. Will you please answer now?

You are unsure what mechanism created the image on the shroud, but you seem to have settled on the Maillard reaction as the most likely mechanism if not by forgery. You pointed out that the Maillard reaction can occur at room temperature in a tractably short amount of time for human secretions, and you said that it had been empirically demonstrated. The reference you cited contains no such evidence. Do you have an actual reference?

You claimed the specimen sampling regime was inappropriate because it was not a multiple random sample. You claimed expertise to support this expectation from experience testing pharmaceutical production. I raised the issue that forensic science appropriately uses different sampling methods and asked you if you had any experience or training in forensic science. Would you care to continue that discussion?
 
Pacal said:
Well the source for Jesus being tried by the Sanhedrin is in fact the New Testament. Such a "Trial" during Passover week was bluntly dubious. Also it appears that the Romans took over in their provinces death penalty cases. Also if you read the Gospels from earliest to latest the responsibility of the Jewish authorities increases and the Romans get more and more blameless. Death by crucifixion was done by the Romans against rebels and other enemies of the state and considered a truly shameful way to die, along with being very brutal.

Given that the early Church was in a struggle with mainstream Judaism I just don't see why they would have Jesus crucified by Romans if they could fully blame Jewish authorities for Jesus' death. Jesus' death occurred around Passover a time in which very large numbers of pilgrims were in Jerusalem and the situation extremely tense because of that. Pilate being there with a large number of troops makes sense. Pilate was known for his brutality and having one alleged disturber of the peace crucified would not have bothered him in the slightest. Pilate's portrayal in the New Testament is bluntly just silly. (The incident of driving the money changers out of the Temple, assuming it actually happened would have been ample incentive to kill Jesus.)

The whole "Trial" before the Sanhedrin and then the "Trial" before Pilate are dubious at most it would have been questioning.

In Judea at the time executing alleged "Messiahs" happened and Jesus was just one more victim.
Click to expand...
In the period between 30CE and 50CE Iudaea wasn't a Roman province, it was a client state (to be precise, four mini ones under the same set of laws and ruling family). Rome tended to be very hands off regarding the internal workings of its client states, as long as the ruler paid his tribute and legionnaries were unmolested they kept their noses largely out.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Income depending on the Shroud?

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

If you can explain why Tite and the Archbishop were packing the samples away from the rest of the team that was so diligently documenting the whole process but the packing of the samples. They had opportunity to do some monkey business away from the rest of the team.

It is plain and simple scientific fraud.

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

From https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Not from the main body, but from the corner near the edge, where the Shroud had been patched.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been a point in this thread where you haven't lied to the rest of us? I won't discuss anything else with you until you honestly answer that question.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: A technique that didn't exist in the Middle Ages and is obvious on examination, especially from behind.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. An "invisible patch" is invisible to a casual glance because it doesn't stand out due to colour or weave differences. Examine it closely, especially from the back side of the fabric, and it's very obviously a re-weave.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom