• 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?"

Darat said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Exactly. The process was fine until it produced results the believers didn't like.
 
JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do you concede that Damon et al did not even follow their own sampling protocol?

A random sampling from the bulk of the cloth away from burn marks and patched areas would be acceptable.

Here, let me fix this for you:

"Do you concede that you are unable to support your claim for empirical demonstration of the proposed room-temperature Mailllard reaction?

cooking.stackexchange.com

What temperature does the Maillard reaction occur?

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about the temperatures and conditions under which the Maillard reaction can occur. Cooking professionals reference all sorts of "minimum temperatures" -- I've
cooking.stackexchange.com cooking.stackexchange.com

We still don't know the actual mechanism that produced the image, so this is a red herring.

There is not supposed to be cotton in the samples.

The samples were from a patched area.

 
Darat said:
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
Click to expand...
Sorry Darat, but that is not true.

Riggi, who cut the samples, noted some stray fibers.

"I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from theShroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric"

Then all three labs noticed cotton in their samples.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Do you concede...
Click to expand...
Please answer my questions. Do not simply keep trying to steer the discussion elsewhere and shift the burden of proof.

bobdroege7 said:
A random sampling from the bulk of the cloth away from burn marks and patched areas would be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Equivocation. You are including some (but not all) of the criteria I alluded to and trying to call it a random sample. The sampling method you proposed is not appropriate for forensic purposes, for the reasons already given. Your opinion still lacks foundation and you seem unwilling to address the reasons.

bobdroege7 said:
Here, let me fix this for you:

"Do you concede that you are unable to support your claim for empirical demonstration of the proposed room-temperature Mailllard reaction?

cooking.stackexchange.com

What temperature does the Maillard reaction occur?

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about the temperatures and conditions under which the Maillard reaction can occur. Cooking professionals reference all sorts of "minimum temperatures" -- I've
cooking.stackexchange.com cooking.stackexchange.com
Click to expand...
You claimed a room-temperature Maillard reaction had been demonstrated for the conditions of enshrouding a corpse consistent with the description of Jesus' burial. You claimed there was documentation for this demonstration. You refuse to provide a citation, so at this point I conclude you know there is no such demonstration and you refuse to concede.

bobdroege7 said:
We still don't know the actual mechanism that produced the image, so this is a red herring.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. You demand that those who conclude the shroud is a forgery must provide a detailed explanation for how the forgery occurred in order for that conclusion to be rational. But you have a much lower standard of proof for the conclusion that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus. You have no idea how the image could have been formed under your hypothesis, yet you insist this is a rational conclusion. It's a blatant double standard.

Are you withdrawing your belief that the image was produced by a Maillard reaction?
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
I am not a believer in any gods or supernatural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Straw man. You are attempting to argue that the Turin Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. You can be a true believer in that proposition without also proposing that Jesus was divine or that anything supernatural occurred.
 
Last edited:
bobdroege7 said:
Sorry Darat, but that is not true.

Riggi, who cut the samples, noted some stray fibers.

"I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from theShroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric"

Then all three labs noticed cotton in their samples.
Click to expand...
The Holland cloth backing was installed much later. It was sewn on with thread. Exactly in the area where the sample was taken. I'd be shocked if there weren't thread fiber residues contaminating the area. That does not change the radiocarbon dated age of the linen cloth that was tested. Which was not cotton.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Sorry Darat, but that is not true.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I see You're unwilling to respond to me directly....

bobdroege7 said:
Riggi, who cut the samples, noted some stray fibers.

"I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from theShroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric"
Click to expand...
And yet he was happy with the samples.
bobdroege7 said:
Then all three labs noticed cotton in their samples.
Click to expand...
Not true.
 
catsmate said:
But you *believe* in the authenticity of the shroud, despite the evidence that it's a medieval creation.
Click to expand...
All the radiocarbon samples had cotton woven into them, so the samples are not representative of the shroud as a whole, so the radiocarbon date is not reliable.

What I believe is that the shroud has not been competently dated.
 
bobdroege7 said:
What I believe is that the shroud has not been competently dated.
Click to expand...
Straw man. You claim that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus. So far your only evidence in favor of this claim seems to be that the image on the shroud is variously consistent with some of the Bible record of the crucifixion and burial, so you've gone beyond simply claiming that it's some random 1st century burial garment. The operative argument is that this belief on your part is cause to examine your arguments for bias.
 
bobdroege7 said:
All the radiocarbon samples had cotton woven into them, so the samples are not representative of the shroud as a whole, so the radiocarbon date is not reliable.
Click to expand...
As I've repeatedly shown, this is untrue.
bobdroege7 said:
What I believe is that the shroud has not been competently dated.
Click to expand...
Because you desperately need it to be older than it really is.
Which says a lot about you.
 
Thermal said:
The Holland cloth backing was installed much later. It was sewn on with thread. Exactly in the area where the sample was taken. I'd be shocked if there weren't thread fiber residues contaminating the area. That does not change the radiocarbon dated age of the linen cloth that was tested. Which was not cotton.
Click to expand...
The very obvious patches date from 1354.
 
catsmate said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom