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

[catsmate]

Because the presence of cotton weaved into a linen cloth indicates that the area was rewoven or patched.

Now where is the evidence for this cotton? Because I debunked your previous assertions. Then you can supply evidence for repairs....

And "so obsessed" is an ad hom.

Sigh. Get yourself a dictionary.

 

[catsmate]

Me too, but the threads used in the patch was dyed to make it look less visible.

Ah, Joe Marino's nonsense. What's next? Unusual levels of aluminium? Gum Arabic? Cotton mordants? Madder dye? Blended threads?

 

[catsmate]

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).

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

Oh not this again.
South was speculating.
Pearson never examined the actual cloth.
di Numana is being quoted out of context, and I covered his comments previously.

BTW, South and di Numana are entirely happy with the radiocarbon dating results.

 

[catsmate]

Using a dye that is undetectable and which has aged in exactly the same way as the rest of the cloth.

But was detectable when necessary for the plot....

 

[Pacal]

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.

Your thinking of the rule of Herod who died in 4 BCE to be replaced by his son Herod Arcelaus who ruled until 6 CE and then was deposed by the Romans who turned Judea into a province of the empire ruled by Governors of which Pontius Pilate was the fifth, (26 C.E., - c. 36 CE.) After Pontius Pilate's removal from office there were more Roman Governors of Judea. Then in CE 41 after the assassination of Caligula Herod Agrippa was made King of Judea, (CE 41-44), and other areas by the Emperor Claudius, after Herod Antipas' death Judea reverted to being a Roman province.

I am a little surprised at this both Josephus and Philo, contemporary writers mention that Pilate was Governor of Judea, both in a highly negative fashion. Philo wrote a short piece about an Embassy to the Emperor Caligula to complain about an order by the Emperor to set up a statute in the Holy of Hollies in the Temple in Jerusalem. Further the New Testament explicitly refers to Pilate has Governor of Judea at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

See Pontius Pilate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

Tell me where I have lied in this discussion.

Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am lying.

 

[bobdroege7]

Ah, Joe Marino's nonsense. What's next? Unusual levels of aluminium? Gum Arabic? Cotton mordants? Madder dye? Blended threads?

Have you actually debunked Joe Marino before calling it nonsense?

You want to bring Ray Rogers work into the mix?

What about what Riggi di Numana, who found "fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric and could have led to erroneous readings in the dating experiment."

 

[bobdroege7]

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?

No, I have not abandoned the claim that the man in the cloth did not die at that time.

Well yes, that follows because we have a historical record of the cloth to the 11th or early 12th century, the Pray Codex. So it logically follows that it is older than 12th century. I think it is from the first century. The evidence being the first century accounts of the crucifixion in the bible.

No one knows for sure how the image was created, but there is no pigments on the shroud, it is absolutely not a painting. If it's a forgery, someone was tortured to make the image.

I don't recall you asking me if I have any forensic training, but I don't have that. Extensive training and experience in analytical equipment used in forensics like Chromatography.

 

[bobdroege7]

Using a dye that is undetectable and which has aged in exactly the same way as the rest of the cloth.

Did I say the dye was undetectable?

It was detected, you know.

And no, it did not age in exactly the same way as the rest of the cloth, because it is newer.

 

[JayUtah]

Well yes, that follows because we have a historical record of the cloth to the 11th or early 12th century, the Pray Codex.

That would conceivably follow from other evidence, not from rejecting the radiocarbon dating. When you say "it follows," that implies a logical connection. There is no logical connection between dismissing one hypothesis and thereby holding to another. You would hold to that other hypothesis on the basis of some other affirmative argument.

I think it is from the first century. The evidence being the first century accounts of the crucifixion in the bible.

Those accounts have been available since the 1st century and may be consulted by anyone at any time thereafter who wishes to create artwork to depict it. And in fact, that has been done many, many times.

Your argument is a colossal failure of logic.

No one knows for sure how the image was created, but there is no pigments on the shroud, it is absolutely not a painting. If it's a forgery, someone was tortured to make the image.

You have claimed it was a Maillard reaction and that it could have occurred at room temperature in the short time the shroud was in contact with the alleged corpse. You said this had been demonstrated, and you gave as evidence of that a reference to a book you said contained an account of that experiment. Your source contains no such information. Therefore my question was whether you could supply a new reference for the experiment. I the alternative, will you conceded that the proposed reaction has not been adequately demonstrated and remains conjecture?

I don't recall you asking me if I have any forensic training, but I don't have that.

I do.

Extensive training and experience in analytical equipment used in forensics like Chromatography.

Yes, I own a chisel too, but that doesn't make me Michelangelo. If you are not qualified in forensic science then you cannot speak as an expert on what is appropriate sampling methodology. Therefore your attempt to discredit the radiocarbon dating on the basis of allegedly improper sampling is rejected for lack of foundation.

 

[Thermal]

No, I have not abandoned the claim that the man in the cloth did not die at that time.

Well yes, that follows because we have a historical record of the cloth to the 11th or early 12th century, the Pray Codex. So it logically follows that it is older than 12th century.

The Pray Codex shows an L-shaped line of round circles (in a different place and proportion than those on the shroud) that actually continue off the 'shroud' and onto the red cross emblazoned slab (I guess it's a slab). But more significantly, there is no image of a man on the Pray Codex, which is the most important element of the shroud. That would mean the image was added after the 11th-12 century?

I think it is from the first century. The evidence being the first century accounts of the crucifixion in the bible.

Those accounts do not correlate specifically to the Turin Shroud any more than they correlate to my bedsheets.

No one knows for sure how the image was created, but there is no pigments on the shroud,

Pigments have been found and identified specifically (ochre, vermillion).

it is absolutely not a painting.

Acid smudged on and oven baked have produced a virtually identical image.

If it's a forgery, someone was tortured to make the image.

I fear this might be true, hideously enough.

 

[bobdroege7]

That would conceivably follow from other evidence, not from rejecting the radiocarbon dating. When you say "it follows," that implies a logical connection. There is no logical connection between dismissing one hypothesis and thereby holding to another. You would hold to that other hypothesis on the basis of some other affirmative argument.


Those accounts have been available since the 1st century and may be consulted by anyone at any time thereafter who wishes to create artwork to depict it. And in fact, that has been done many, many times.

Your argument is a colossal failure of logic.


You have claimed it was a Maillard reaction and that it could have occurred at room temperature in the short time the shroud was in contact with the alleged corpse. You said this had been demonstrated, and you gave as evidence of that a reference to a book you said contained an account of that experiment. Your source contains no such information. Therefore my question was whether you could supply a new reference for the experiment. I the alternative, will you conceded that the proposed reaction has not been adequately demonstrated and remains conjecture?


I do.


Yes, I own a chisel too, but that doesn't make me Michelangelo. If you are not qualified in forensic science then you cannot speak as an expert on what is appropriate sampling methodology. Therefore your attempt to discredit the radiocarbon dating on the basis of allegedly improper sampling is rejected for lack of foundation.

It follows both from rejecting the radiocarbon dating and the historical dating. The 12th century Pray Codex is evidence the shroud is older than the radiocarbon date.

All the artwork I have seen depicts the crucifixion differently than what is depicted on the shroud. The bible does not go into the details of where the nails were driven, what kind of whip he was flogged with, and what kind of crown of thorns he wore. Yes, done many times, but none that match the man in the shroud. No points for the medieval forgery position.

Yes the Maillard reaction is just a hypothesis and conjecture just like all the other hypotheses for how the image was created, this one is a draw. Anyway, how the image was created has little to do with how old the cloth happens to be.

Other fields use sampling techniques other than forensics, but your expertise is irrelevant, because Damon et al did not take the proper diligence to follow their protocol and make sure their samples were representative of the cloth as a whole. And by the way I am not speaking as an expert on sampling, I am relying on other experts who are making the claim that the samples were not representative of the whole cloth. You and your chisel are rejected because this is not forensics, maybe we should listen to archaeologists and radiocarbon dating experts.

"One of the most important points in this paper was made by Marian Scott of the International Radiocarbon Calibration Program, headquartered in Glasgow, Scotland: she asserted that a minimum of three samples must be taken from three different areas on the Shroud so that the results could be compared with all other results"

From https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ohiomaloneypaper.pdf

 

[JayUtah]

It follows both from rejecting the radiocarbon dating and the historical dating.

No, that's not what "follows" means.

If you argue that some other codex supplies evidence for a different earliest date, that claim is independent of whether any radiocarbon dating was even done. That the truth of some claim "follows" from the failure of another independent claim is one of the classic errors of reasoning.

All the artwork I have seen depicts the crucifixion differently than what is depicted on the shroud. The bible does not go into the details of where the nails were driven, what kind of whip he was flogged with, and what kind of crown of thorns he wore. Yes, done many times, but none that match the man in the shroud. No points for the medieval forgery position.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible description is accurate enough for you to tell that the shroud dates to that time, or it isn't.

Yes the Maillard reaction is just a hypothesis and conjecture just like all the other hypotheses for how the image was created, this one is a draw. Anyway, how the image was created has little to do with how old the cloth happens to be.

You claimed a room-temperature Maillard reaction to produce the shroud image had been empirically demonstrated. Are you now withdrawing that claim?

And no, it's not unimportant. You demand that the fraud hypothesis be established with evidence conclusive enough to allow someone else to reproduce it. But when it comes to establishing how the image was created in your hypothesis, you can just shrug your shoulders and admit you have no good idea how it was done. That's a clear double standard. No, the supposed age of the cloth has nothing to do with authenticating the image.

Other fields use sampling techniques other than forensics

Irrelevant. Authentication is a forensic exercise. What you insist should have been the correct sampling method is, in fact, not correct.

And by the way I am not speaking as an expert on sampling

You literally postured your objection as an expert opinion based on your claimed professional experience in production quality measurement.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, that's not what "follows" means.

If you argue that some other codex supplies evidence for a different earliest date, that claim is independent of whether any radiocarbon dating was even done. That the truth of some claim "follows" from the failure of another independent claim is one of the classic errors of reasoning.


You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible description is accurate enough for you to tell that the shroud dates to that time, or it isn't.


You claimed a room-temperature Maillard reaction to produce the shroud image had been empirically demonstrated. Are you now withdrawing that claim?

And no, it's not unimportant. You demand that the fraud hypothesis be established with evidence conclusive enough to allow someone else to reproduce it. But when it comes to establishing how the image was created in your hypothesis, you can just shrug your shoulders and admit you have no good idea how it was done. That's a clear double standard. No, the supposed age of the cloth has nothing to do with authenticating the image.


Irrelevant. Authentication is a forensic exercise. What you insist should have been the correct sampling method is, in fact, not correct.


You literally postured your objection as an expert opinion based on your claimed professional experience in production quality measurement.

OK, it doesn't follow, but we have two independent facts, one the shroud dates from before the Pray Codex, and two, the radiocarbon dating fails for a number of reasons, which I have explained in detail.

The bible and the shroud differ on the details, but they match enough for a first century date. I am not, as you say, having it both ways.

Clearly, I offered the Maillard reaction as a hypotheses, I did not claim it was actually the cause of the image. You do not know how the image was produced either, like I said this one is a draw, you are not any more correct than I am.

Your side is claiming it is a fraud, therefore it is up to you and your side to produce evidence that it is a fraud, and the fraudulent Damon paper does not support that. All the evidence you have for fraud is circumstantial.

So, what is the proper sampling method? Was the sampling method you would approve of the one used during the execution of the radiocarbon dating. They did not even meet their own sampling criteria. Would your method differ from the one I referenced from a radiocarbon dating expert?

All I said was I always sampled randomly, I would add always a well-mixed sample.

 

[JayUtah]

OK, it doesn't follow

Agreed.

but we have two independent facts...

No, you have two independent claims.

The bible and the shroud differ on the details, but they match enough for a first century date. I am not, as you say, having it both ways.

You are exactly cherry-picking the details you think support your beliefs and rejecting those that don't.

The question put to you is what evidence dates the shroud to the 1st century. The Pray Codex does not, because at best it pushes the date back only 100 years. Noting selected references in the image to the well-known crucifixion story does not, because that's a circular argument.

Clearly, I offered the Maillard reaction as a hypotheses, I did not claim it was actually the cause of the image.

You said a Maillard reaction was what you thought caused the image. You provided no better hypothesis. You said that the reaction could occur in a short time at room temperature. You claimed this feat has been replicated, and offered to show me where that replication was documented. Since you can't seem to do that, I'm asking you if you will retract the claim that your hypothesis has been empirically verified. Will you do that?

You do not know how the image was produced either, like I said this one is a draw, you are not any more correct than I am.

The question was your double standard.

Your side is claiming it is a fraud, therefore it is up to you and your side to produce evidence that it is a fraud...

That has been done. I find the evidence persuasive. In contrast, the evidence put forward that it is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus is extremely weak and based in large part on circular reasoning and questionable empiricism. That's independent of the claim being improbable on its face. I further find the attempts to rebut the evidence of forgery to be unpersuasive.

So, what is the proper sampling method?

You can't use probabilistic sampling when different portions of the material are known or suspected to exhibit variations in properties that will affect the contemplated tests. When sampling for nominal properties of happenstance artifacts, you have to deterministically avoid sources of variance not endemic to the artifact. Usually this comes down to avoiding contaminants and damage. In some cases contaminants can be removed. A probabilistic sample would do this poorly. Conversely if the test aims to determine the cause of an occurrence, it has to deterministically sample the area affected—not the nominally unaffected portions. Often a major concern is preservation of the artifact either for further testing or for some extrinsic purpose such as display. This affects not only how much material you can sample but where the sample can occur. Any method that satisfices among these criteria is defensible, provided a suitable error analysis accompanies the findings.

All I said was I always sampled randomly, I would add always a well-mixed sample.

You asserted that random sampling was the proper method for obtaining specimens from the shroud for radiocarbon dating, and that the failure to follow such a method made the results non-credible. Based on what I understand your work to have been, a random sample is appropriate to your work. But it does not generalize to other scientific examination.

 

[catsmate]

Have you actually debunked Joe Marino before calling it nonsense?

Yep. As have others. I suppose we could start with his infamously silly "ten solid reasons why the C-14 corner differs from the Shroud’s main part" where he makes all sort of nonsensical claims regarding the sampled area, regarding fluorescence, presence of madder root extract and an aluminium derived mordant and "interwoven cotton".
Alas for the believers these assertions are as sprurious as the magically invisible patch.
The fluorescence is worthless, there are several other areas (oops,I almost said 'patches') where this is equally visible (I refer you to the STURP images) . Nor does Marino (or earlier he and his wife) explain what is supposedly causing this fluorescence.

His statements regarding the presence of aluminium (present on the cloth as a mordant) is painfully stupid.
He asserts that "hydrates aluminium oxide" was detected on the cloth. Not only is this untrue, his assertion that this material (basically hydrated alumina) was used as a mordant is unsupported by historical research. In fact no-one has any samples of such usage; the common aluminium compound used as mordant was alum (impure potassium aluminium sulphate). This differentiation is important as it speaks to both Mariano's honesty (the techniques he's referring to were elementally analytical and wouldn't differentiate the compounds) and his competence with historical research (alum was commonly used, alumina was not).
BTW that data, on which Marino bases his assertions, done by Adler, Russell, Seltzer, and DeBlase, is extremely dubious; an analysis of basically a piece of pure cellulose (i.e. linen or cotton) should show approximaley equal proportions of carbon and oxygen (they are, basically, carbohydrates). But it does not. In fact they claim to have determined proportions (C/O) of 93/3.2, 66/27, 22/48, 33/43, and 21/49, which is utter garbage.
Strangely the shroudies haven't noticed this problem. Thank fully others have.

Marino claims that the magically patches area used madder as adye, presumably to match the rest of the cloth.He provides no evidence for this assertion so I didn't plan on wasting time addressing it.
He also asserts that alizarin and purpurin were present, but,again does not explain any chemical tests that substantiated these assertions.

Not satisfied with these unsupported assertions he goes on to further nonsensical claims. Specifically that a second mordant was used, claiming that calcium carbonate was used (both on the Lirey cloth and in general) to later the colour, asserting that
"Calcium compounds produce blue colours" a statement so bizarrely untrue, as easily found to be so, that it further brings into question Mariano's honesty and credibility
In fact calcium carbonate was often used with madder to intensify its red colour, not to turn it blue, which it simply doesn't do.
I'm going to skip over the Marino assertions regarding gun Arabic being present, as They're both irrelevant and unproven by his "analysis" with further dubious claims regarding the pyrolysis products of cellulose. In passing I will mention that the cleansing of the radiocarbon samples would remove gum arabic with ease and even if Mariano's claims were true his supposed spectrographic results didn't actually match what he claims for them.......
ON to the cotton claims. I've covered most of these previously so It'll stick to Marino's specific claims, which are based on statements by Heimburger and Fanti.
By the way, these claims are based on just two fragments of single threads.
Heimburger claimed that his thread fragment (“R7") was "definitely some kind of blended thread".
While Fants suggested that the tiny amount of cotton fragments on his thread ("F15001") was due to cotton being a contaminant, probably from the environment where linen threads were prepared.
Heinburger's claims fall apart early; experts have stated that such blended thread didn't actually exist (and there are no extant examples). Others, such as Dorothy Crispino and Hilda Leynen, have pointed out that accidental contamination was almost inevitable given much thread was prepared.
So, to summarise, assertions and garbage science. Rejected.

You want to bring Ray Rogers work into the mix?

Not particularly. His attempts at science were blinded by religious belief.
But given that Marino and Benford based their nonsense on his.....
How do you feel about his 'Black Forrest elves'?

What about what Riggi di Numana, who found "fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric and could have led to erroneous readings in the dating experiment."

Sigh. Poor Giovanni. Persona-non-grata amongst the shroudies because of his involvement with the radiocarbon dating.
It's also a pity he didn't provide evidence for his assertions.....

 

[catsmate]

Well yes, that follows because we have a historical record of the cloth to the 11th or early 12th century, the Pray Codex.

No "we" don't. That another lie. We covered the Codex previously and, despite the desperate claims of shroudies sushi as yourself, there is no reason to believe it's illustration references the Lirey cloth.

So it logically follows that it is older than 12th century.

Ah, a new use of the word "reason" to cover the gaping holes in your claims.

I think it is from the first century.

But have failed to support your beliefs with evidence......

The evidence being the first century accounts of the crucifixion in the bible.

Right......
Accounts that contradict each other and were written decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

No one knows for sure how the image was created,

Well it has been recreated....

but there is no pigments on the shroud,

Oh, so You're changing your claims? And there is pigment on the cloth.

If it's a forgery, someone was tortured to make the image.

No evidence for that. And no need. Not that such would be too shocking anyway.

I don't recall you asking me if I have any forensic training, but I don't have that. Extensive training and experience in analytical equipment used in forensics like Chromatography.

Really...... Certainly your claims here show gaping holes in your supposed "experience".

 

[catsmate]

It follows both from rejecting the radiocarbon dating and the historical dating.

Circularity returns....

The 12th century Pray Codex is evidence the shroud is older than the radiocarbon date.

No, it isn't.

All the artwork I have seen depicts the crucifixion differently than what is depicted on the shroud.

Study more.

 

[bobdroege7]

You can't use probabilistic sampling when different portions of the material are known or suspected to exhibit variations in properties that will affect the contemplated tests. When sampling for nominal properties of happenstance artifacts, you have to deterministically avoid sources of variance not endemic to the artifact. Usually this comes down to avoiding contaminants and damage. In some cases contaminants can be removed. A probabilistic sample would do this poorly. Conversely if the test aims to determine the cause of an occurrence, it has to deterministically sample the area affected—not the nominally unaffected portions. Often a major concern is preservation of the artifact either for further testing or for some extrinsic purpose such as display. This affects not only how much material you can sample but where the sample can occur. Any method that satisfices among these criteria is defensible, provided a suitable error analysis accompanies the findings.

Nice, but you skillfully avoided the question.

Did they follow that when they sampled the shroud, yes or no?

How did they avoid sources of variance not endemic to the shroud?

Did they avoid contaminants and damage?

 

[bobdroege7]

Study more.

I have previously asked for depictions of the crucifixion with nails through the wrists and a full cap of thorns rather than a crown like ring of thorns.

I got crickets.