• 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?"

bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you accept that the shroud image in the codex bears no similarity to the Lirey cloth?
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. Tis simply isn't true.

And, while we're on the 'herringbone' weave pattern, where is your evidence that cloth using such a weave was common in first century Palestine?
bobdroege7 said:
You have the hands, the burn marks, the herringbone and what the reverse side of the herringbone weave looks like.
Click to expand...
No.
The positioning of the hands is irrelevant, for the reasons I gave the last time you invoked the manuscript.
The supposed markings on the cloth in the manuscript image didn't match the Lirey cloth. As covered previously.
There is no connection betweenthe image and and weave pattern. You appears to be grossly ignorant of what a herringbone weave actually is.
 
catsmate said:
As has been shown,this assertions are spurious.

Why don't you give your opinion?
Click to expand...
Try showing me again then, there is evidence it is from a patch, it is also much thinner where the sample was taken, another nail in the coffin for the idea that the sample is representative.

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

From the Damon paper again, do you think 10 centimeters is far enough away from any charred areas? 0 centimeters from a patch.

No they did not follow their own protocol, and lied about it in the paper.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Try showing me again then,
Click to expand...
No. I have no need for repetition.
bobdroege7 said:
there is evidence it is from a patch,
Click to expand...
No,
bobdroege7 said:
it is also much thinner where the sample was taken,
Click to expand...
Evidence?
bobdroege7 said:
another nail in the coffin for the idea that the sample is representative.
Click to expand...
No.
bobdroege7 said:
"The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."
Click to expand...
Indeed.
bobdroege7 said:
From the Damon paper again, do you think 10 centimeters is far enough away from any charred areas? 0 centimeters from a patch.
Click to expand...
Given the sampled area was unburned and there was no patching there, yep.
bobdroege7 said:
No they did not follow their own protocol, and lied about it in the paper.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Plenty is shown. Way plenty. And the image is unnaturally flat for virtually the length of where the image should be.
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Holup... you're now saying that the back of the shroud is emblazoned with red Templar crosses?

And why the hell would the artist be going ape ◊◊◊◊ to show a herringbone weave (that doesn't even reflect what a herringbone weave looks like in the abstract)?
bobdroege7 said:
You have the hands,
Click to expand...
Crossed very specifically at the wrists, unlike the shroud image.
bobdroege7 said:
the burn marks,
Click to expand...
Which appear all over the place, on an off the supposed shroud
bobdroege7 said:
the herringbone and what the reverse side of the herringbone weave looks like.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let's dig a little deeper then, is the chi-squared testing inappropriate? If not, because they did do that in the Damon paper, what does the chi-squared test indicate, and what would be the number that indicates inhomogeneity of the sample?

It is not only my claim, a number of textile experts have made that claim and I have cited them.
 
bobdroege7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
(Shrug) Ok. It seems like the artist went to an awful lot of trouble to depict things on the "shroud," like burn marks and the weave, that don't mark it out as anything different from any other ordinary, non-miraculous shroud, without bothering to show the one thing that would make it the Shroud. As for "the shroud in the Pray Codex is not laid out flat so the image could be shown"-the parsimonious explanation for why the shroud in the picture (it if even is meant to be a shroud) doesn't show any image is because there wasn't one to be shown. If you have to resort to convenient excuses to claim otherwise, then you're inventing evidence- you've gone beyond producing what's demonstrable in support of a thesis to just asserting what's necessary for it.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Let's dig a little deeper then, is the chi-squared...
Click to expand...
As I alluded previously, I'm not going to follow you every time you derail the line of questioning to bring up the same tired, debunked subjects again and again. That extends to "digging deeper" on your pet subject. Let me remind you what I was talking about before you tried to change the subject.

Do you concede the point that random sampling is not appropriate for this application?

Do you concede that you are unable to support your claim for empirical demonstration of the purported room-temperature Mailllard reaction?
 
bobdroege7 said:
The hearsay letter you are referring to, the letter has no significance to the question.
Click to expand...
As with 'ad hominem' throwing around terms like 'hearsay' doesn't impress me.
Nor does your attempt to handwave away awkward facts.....

bobdroege7 said:
And until you admit that the image is not made of pigment, you have no credibility in this discussion.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Unlike, say, Walter McCrone?
This is getting really pathetic.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Let's dig a little deeper then, is the chi-squared testing inappropriate? If not, because they did do that in the Damon paper, what does the chi-squared test indicate, and what would be the number that indicates inhomogeneity of the sample?

It is not only my claim, a number of textile experts have made that claim and I have cited them.
Click to expand...
Sigh. More pathetic, recycled, lies and nonsense.

ETA: Autocorrect typo fixed. Thanks @P.J. Denyer
 
Last edited:
A few points to preempt @bobdroege7.

Selection of the sampling area.
It seems to be holy writ amongst the shroudies that the experts preparing for the radiocarbon dating argued for a hour or so and then decided on a site (to shroudies) completely unsuitable (mutter, invisible patch, mutter, mutter, cotton, muter, repairs.....) that anybody with the most casual acquaintance with the cloth (i.e. STURP who were annoyed at being mostly sidelined in favour of real scientists).
This tends to be part of their general attacks on "the scientists", but most of the blame is dumped on the "textile experts" who, although supposedly completely unfamiliar with the cloth (hint; they weren't) managed to persuade a number of people who should have known better, that this corner was the best place.
This doesn't actually address how they actually selected the corner, but the whole thing is generally attributed (mostly by Americans) to Italian incompetence. Perhaps because those who've pontificated at such length about the process either weren't there on 21APR1988 and/or didn’t speak Italian.
These various accounts (e.g. Sox, Wilson, et al) are contradictory and quite simply wromg.
The two experts were Franco Testore (Professor of Textile Technology at Turin), and Gabriel Vial (Professor at the Institut des Textiles de Lyon). Contraray to the shroudie lies neither of them were unfamiliar with the supposed shroud.
  • Testore had been invited by Roberto Gonella who was Scientific Advisor to Cardinal Ballestrero of Turin, and Vial had been asked by Jacques Evin (from the radiocarbon centre in Lyons and Tite of the British Museum. He was also sampled with procuring appropriate control samples.
There are, in fact, detailed accounts of the proceedings but I shall not bore the members with them. Four hours were allocated, mainly due to the desire for the Archbishop to be present, but also because there was an idea to take a sample from the end of teh cloth folded under the second backing (the blue silk) where it might not be visible at all. This proved not to be possible
  • In 1989, at a symposium in Paris, both Testore and Vial gave public explanations of the reasons for the selection of the Raes corner, which nobody queried.
After the radiocarbon sample had been cut both Testore and Vial made use of their access to the cloth to continue their examinations for the remainder of the day. Several papers resulted from this.

Now in all probability the Raes corner was going to be selected after it was found that there was insufficient cloth under the blue silk backing for the purpose. It was the logical place. But actually they weren't the people to first propose the sample should be taken from there; in 1984 STURP itself, in the form of Robert Dinegar and Garman Harbottle, proposed that region be used.
In turn, that was suggested in 1979 by......Harry Gove. Also of STURP.
Gove's suggestion (dated 19MAY1979) was accepted by STURP later that year anf approved by, Robert Dinegar, Raymond Rogers and David Sox.
In fact the group wanted to use the piece actually cut off by Raes in 1973.

All of which makes the later shroudie nonsense rather hypocritical.

Now the shroudies have various reasons who that corner was (supposedly) unsuitable. We've heard a lot of nonsense in this thread about a patch or reweave that was undetectable to the experts of 1988 (and today), rants about "obvious contamination" (that that edge of the cloth was commonly used to grip it when it was being held up to help fleece the suckers allow the faithful to view the relic.
This was, by the way, the gospel according to Ray Schneider who, back in '14, produced some very dodgy stats to support this. Of course he failed to address, or mention, the cleaning procedures applied to the samples.
  • Amusingly his 'clear gradient' calculations were the exact inverse of what he supposed. He also failed to address how grubby medieval fingers could have made the cloth appear older rather than younger...... Hence even hardcore shroudies don't like to mention him much, i case someone exposes his nonsense.
Our old friend Alan Adler also proposed two reasons, both equally spurious. Firstly he claimed the sampled area ("Only a single sample was taken in the lower corner of the main cloth of the frontal image below the so-called sidestrip from the selvage edge in an obviously waterstained area just a few inches from a burn mark").
Except the margin of the water staining doesn't touch the sampled area.... Ooops.
  • Interestingly the 'riserva' section of the sample cut from the cloth (a bit cut off by not used by the radiocarbon efforts) is within the contamination, making something of a mockery of various later shroudie studies on it.
Now, on to Alder's "a few inches from a burn mark". Well we can forgive him for not using centimetres (he was a Yank after all) but Adler knew very well that no part of the Shroud is more than "a few inches from a burn mark". In fact if he'd bothered to check (for example, Aldo Guerreschi’s reconstruction of the way the cloth was folded during the 1532 fire, based on fold marks) he would have known damn well that the 'radiocarbon corner' was about as far from the main region of the scorching as it was possible to get.

Furthermore that area had been extensively studied by the 1973 commission, mainly by the Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes. Now Raes made no mention of patches, repairs et cetera in the region, and, unlike the subsequent shroudies who claim patching/weaving/contamination, had been able to study an actual piece of cloth rather than just snippets of thread, individual fibres.
Raes had found nothing controversial.

These objections and their variations are not , of course sensible reasons for not choosing that site. They are post hoc attempts to explain away the undesirable (to shroudies) results of that testing.



This bring up another matter, one I must confess I'd forgotten about until I recent refreshed my memories. Yes, I am falliable, I understand this will disappoint my fans here....
Most of the burns on the Lirey cloth, including those so beloved of enthusiasts of the Pray Codex, were caused by the 1532 fire in Chambery. The Pray Codex was created (probably) around 1195.
Obviously time travellers.
 
Great post.

There was no issue about where the sample was taken from at the time it was taken. It was only once the results of the radiocarbon dating came out that showed the cloth was nowhere near 1st century that quite suddenly there were problems with where/how the sample was taken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom