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

[Thermal]

I have previously asked for depictions of the crucifixion with nails through the wrists

Wrist nailing is unneccesary if ropes were used to support the weight, as is believed. Also, is this belief based on the thumb contraction? Cuz the wrists are in full view with no apparent gaping hole and blood everywhere. This would indicate the shroud forger actually got it all wrong,

ETA: correction, blood is shown on the wrist area

and a full cap of thorns rather than a crown like ring of thorns.

As far as I know, no one thinks this, nor is there blood on the top of the head area of the shroud that some kind of cap would presumably cause. If it was a cap (for whatever reason), it went down to the base of the neck, where puncture wounds are claimed to be shown. No punctures are shown on the shroud outside where the stereotypical crown shape would have been.

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

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

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


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

Well it has been recreated....

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

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

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

Yes there is pigments on the cloth, but it does not form the image, the vermillion is from paintings of the shroud pressed onto the shroud to make them relics.

There is iron oxide on the shroud, but that comes from the blood and the retting, and it's not red ochre.

You are lying about the Pray Codex. Two things depicted there show it was seen by the artist who drew the drawings in the Pray Codex.

Since you brought it up, what are the contradictions relating to the crucifixion in the bible?

 

[Thermal]

Yes there is pigments on the cloth, but it does not form the image, the vermillion is from paintings of the shroud pressed onto the shroud to make them relics.

There is iron oxide on the shroud, but that comes from the blood and the retting, and it's not red ochre.

If it was actual blood, where is the potassium residue?

You are lying about the Pray Codex. Two things depicted there show it was seen by the artist who drew the drawings in the Pray Codex.

But he didn't notice the image of a man? Why did he put the four holes in the wrong place, orientation, and proportion? Why did he continue the hole pattern down to the crossed slab?

And why did the artist show the realistically wadded up cloth in the same image, but the 'shroud' image is unnaturally rigid and floating up stretched taught? Why is the grossly disproportionate and unrealistic herringbone weave (or so you claim) drawn in cartoonishly large, but he forgot to indicate the miraculous image of the savior?

 

[catsmate]

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.

Sigh. You did however get a rebuttal of the assertion that the Lirey cloth actually depicts nails through the wrists.....
This is, of course, another shroudie red herring. We have no idea exactly where Romans placed their nails (there certainly are variations) nor can we assume that a medieval artisan knew either. I suspect he made his own anatomical deductions, and made the same error as most modern interpreters.


I note @bobdroege7 that you continue to fail to address the corrections and rebuttals of your assertions. Just as you have failed, repeatedly, to support your claims. Where are your purported samples of herringbone weaved cloth from first century Palestine, for example. When will you be addressing the testimony of Pierre d’Arcis?

 

[catsmate]

Yes there is pigments on the cloth, but it does not form the image,

Untrue. Re-read McCrone.

the vermillion is from paintings of the shroud pressed onto the shroud to make them relics.

Ah, the old shroudie excuse......

There is iron oxide on the shroud, but that comes from the blood and the retting, and it's not red ochre.

Untrue. You, along with your fellow shroudies, have signally failed to support your claims of blood on the cloth.

You are lying about the Pray Codex.

Sigh. No I'm not, you're in denial.

Two things depicted there show it was seen by the artist who drew the drawings in the Pray Codex.

Nope. Another unsupported assertion.

Since you brought it up, what are the contradictions relating to the crucifixion in the bible?

Oh look another attempt to shift the burden. Start by looking at: the timing, the inscription, the carriage of the cross, the crucification of the thieves (which is utter nonsense), witnesses, drinks, the commentary of the supposed centurion, the alleged earthquake, the last words of the failed messiah.............

 

[JayUtah]

Nice, but you skillfully avoided the question.

Not at all. You asked a question expecting a singular answer. The right answer to your question is open-ended, so I gave you the proper open-ended response.

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

This is you trying to shift the burden of proof and beg a slightly similar question to the one we've just dispelled. I am satisfied with the sampling procedures used to obtain specimens for radiocarbon dating. I reject your claims that it was improper for the reasons you gave, because your opinion lacks foundation.

 

[bobdroege7]

Not at all. You asked a question expecting a singular answer. The right answer to your question is open-ended, so I gave you the proper open-ended response.


This is you trying to shift the burden of proof and beg a slightly similar question to the one we've just dispelled. I am satisfied with the sampling procedures used to obtain specimens for radiocarbon dating. I reject your claims that it was improper for the reasons you gave, because your opinion lacks foundation.

So you are fine with the sample coming from a patched area? And the non-conforming Chi^2 test?

Are you sure they followed their own protocol?

 

[catsmate]

So you are fine with the sample coming from a patched area? And the non-conforming Chi^2 test?

As has been shown,this assertions are spurious.

Are you sure they followed their own protocol?

Why don't you give your opinion?

 

[GlennB]

As has been shown,this assertions are spurious.

But will be repeated relentlessly, even unto the end of time.

 

[Thermal]

Faith is, after all, unwavering belief in the easily disproved.

 

[JayUtah]

So you are fine with the sample coming from a patched area? And the non-conforming Chi^2 test?

Are you sure they followed their own protocol?

Don't put words in my mouth, especially when it's just to beg the same questions you've been begging for 20 pages. I don't accept your claims regarding the alleged patch. I don't accept your interpretation of the chi-squared results. Your desire to incessantly relitigate the same few issues over and over again is tedious and unconvincing.

 

[catsmate]

But will be repeated relentlessly, even unto the end of time.

Yeah.

 

[catsmate]

Don't put words in my mouth, especially when it's just to beg the same questions you've been begging for 20 pages. I don't accept your claims regarding the alleged patch. I don't accept your interpretation of the chi-squared results. Your desire to incessantly relitigate the same few issues over and over again is tedious and unconvincing.

And boring.

@bobdroege7 backpedalled humiliatingly on his limestone claims, fled the herringbone field of battle and won't touch Pierre d'Arcis.
It's all patches and invisible repairs, blood and cotton.

 

[turingtest]

And boring.

@bobdroege7 backpedalled humiliatingly on his limestone claims, fled the herringbone field of battle and won't touch Pierre d'Arcis.
It's all patches and invisible repairs, blood and cotton.

And the Pray Codex, don't forget that. Which is really grasping at straws, I think. As Thermal says above- if you believe in the authenticity of a relic which has as its salient, indeed defining, characteristic the visible figure of a 1st-century crucified man, but which has been dated to 1300-some years later, how does it make sense to counter the dating by a claim that it was seen and depicted in a drawing a century earlier when the drawing doesn't depict that central characteristic? "These circles on the drawing show the burn marks!" seems like a desperate deflection from what the drawing doesn't show but you would think certainly should.

 

[catsmate]

Wrt the Pray Codex there's also a theory of a code hidden in the image, which is slightly more plausible.

 

[Thermal]

Wrt the Pray Codex there's also a theory of a code hidden in the image, which is slightly more plausible.

Intruiging... what is that theory? Are we going all DaVinci code here?

 

[catsmate]

Intruiging... what is that theory? Are we going all DaVinci code here?

Sort of. I'll dig out some details later and post them

 

[catsmate]

The codex Code.

I'm going to assume that anyone reading further posesses at least a basic familiarity with the manuscript known to shroudies as the Pray Codex (or Sacramentarium Bolvense).

The claims of an embedded code in the codex are mainly down to one Max Patrick Hamon,who is a shroudies and also a self-proclaimed "professional cryptosteganographer". Steganography is the technique of embedding a hidden message in a picture. It'd very old.

Hamon is, well a fairly typical conspiracy nut/alternative thinker. Blessed with overweening self-assurance, though without the necessary skills to support his claims, he really doesn't like having his assertions disproved, or even queried. He's also utterly dogmatic bout his assertions,regardless of the absence of evidence for them.

Remind you of anyone?

Now remember the image in the Codex that shroudies like our own @bobdroege7 maintain shows the burns on the Lirey cloth? It's generally known as the ‘Three Marys’ image.

Now Hamon doesn't concentrate on the imaginary simulaties with the Lirey cloth but on what appears to be a
large lowercase letter ‘a’ in the middle of the picture, between the angel and the Three Marys, above the sarcophagus, close to the crumpled shroud.
I should now point out that it might not be an 'a', it could be 'd' or possibly 'cl'.
This has generated some speculation, is it a reference to Alpha or anima?
Nope, Hamon insists it's 'Almos' a hidden message embedded by a cryptographically inclined Benedictine monk who placed it in several other locations within the manuscript.
'Almos' is a reference to the surname Álmos, the Hungarian name of the legendary founder of Hungary. It means (approximately) ‘dreamy or ‘sleepy’, and this is reinforced (to Hamnon anyway) but the images of figures with their eyes closed.

He (Hamon that is) continues in this vein for some time.
Even the people at Shroud Story didn't take him seriously

Decrypted: Iconosteganalysist or Iconocryptanalyst

Five days ago, close reader and frequent commenter Max Patrick Hamon wrote: You are totally entitled to deny my expertise as iconosteganalysist or iconocryptanalyst. This is fair enough since I hav…

shroudstory.com

https://shroudstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/more-than-meet-the-non.pdf

 

[Thermal]

The codex Code.

I'm going to assume that anyone reading further posesses at least a basic familiarity with the manuscript known to shroudies as the Pray Codex (or Sacramentarium Bolvense).

The claims of an embedded code in the codex are mainly down to one Max Patrick Hamon,who is a shroudies and also a self-proclaimed "professional cryptosteganographer". Steganography is the technique of embedding a hidden message in a picture. It'd very old.

Hamon is, well a fairly typical conspiracy nut/alternative thinker. Blessed with overweening self-assurance, though without the necessary skills to support his claims, he really doesn't like having his assertions disproved, or even queried. He's also utterly dogmatic bout his assertions,regardless of the absence of evidence for them.

Remind you of anyone?

Now remember the image in the Codex that shroudies like our own @bobdroege7 maintain shows the burns on the Lirey cloth? It's generally known as the ‘Three Marys’ image.

Now Hamon doesn't concentrate on the imaginary simulaties with the Lirey cloth but on what appears to be a
large lowercase letter ‘a’ in the middle of the picture, between the angel and the Three Marys, above the sarcophagus, close to the crumpled shroud.
I should now point out that it might not be an 'a', it could be 'd' or possibly 'cl'.
This has generated some speculation, is it a reference to Alpha or anima?
Nope, Hamon insists it's 'Almos' a hidden message embedded by a cryptographically inclined Benedictine monk who placed it in several other locations within the manuscript.
'Almos' is a reference to the surname Álmos, the Hungarian name of the legendary founder of Hungary. It means (approximately) ‘dreamy or ‘sleepy’, and this is reinforced (to Hamnon anyway) but the images of figures with their eyes closed.

He (Hamon that is) continues in this vein for some time.
Even the people at Shroud Story didn't take him seriously

Decrypted: Iconosteganalysist or Iconocryptanalyst

Five days ago, close reader and frequent commenter Max Patrick Hamon wrote: You are totally entitled to deny my expertise as iconosteganalysist or iconocryptanalyst. This is fair enough since I hav…

shroudstory.com

https://shroudstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/more-than-meet-the-non.pdf

Thanks for taking the time to dig that up and post that. I googled it first but wasn't seeing anything.

 

[bobdroege7]

And the Pray Codex, don't forget that. Which is really grasping at straws, I think. As Thermal says above- if you believe in the authenticity of a relic which has as its salient, indeed defining, characteristic the visible figure of a 1st-century crucified man, but which has been dated to 1300-some years later, how does it make sense to counter the dating by a claim that it was seen and depicted in a drawing a century earlier when the drawing doesn't depict that central characteristic? "These circles on the drawing show the burn marks!" seems like a desperate deflection from what the drawing doesn't show but you would think certainly should.

No need for the Pray Codex to show the image, the shroud in the Pray Codex is not laid out flat so the image could be shown.

There is no sarcophagus or tomb or coffin, it is the other side of the shroud, the crosses show what the herringbone weave looks like on the back side of the shroud.

You have the hands, the burn marks, the herringbone and what the reverse side of the herringbone weave looks like.