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

[bobdroege7]

I see what you did there.

Yes, exactly, Luigi Gonella and Cardinal Ballestero decided where to take the sample with consent of the Pope, the most important consideration being the conservation of the relic.

The rest had no say, the result being that the sample was taken from a patched area and not representative of the shroud as a whole.

The results are therefore worthless.

Team pointy hats 1 team labcoats 0.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, exactly, Luigi Gonella and Cardinal Ballestero decided where to take the sample with consent of the Pope, the most important consideration being the conservation of the relic.

Anyone else expect a fringe reset?
@bobdroege7 you are wrong. Again. Did you bother to read what I posted regarding the selection process? Did you understand it?

The rest had no say,

Untrue.

the result being that the sample was taken from a patched area

Untrue

and not representative of the shroud as a whole.

Untrue

The results are therefore worthless.

Untrue

Team pointy hats 1 team labcoats 0.

Childish nonsense.
Merely because you choose to declare victory rather than addressing inconvenient reality, doesn't make it true.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The rest had no say, the result being that the sample was taken from a patched area and not representative of the shroud as a whole.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! No matter how many times you repeat the lie that the sample was taken from a patched area of the shroud, this is simply not the case!

At this point the thread is like trying to argue with a three year old child. It's probably best to give the kid a kiss and put him to bed.

 

[SteveAitch]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! No matter how many times you repeat the lie that the sample was taken from a patched area of the shroud, this is simply not the case!

At this point the thread is like trying to argue with a three year old child. It's probably best to give the kid a kiss some laudanum and put him to bed.

Might work better...

 

[catsmate]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! No matter how many times you repeat the lie that the sample was taken from a patched area of the shroud, this is simply not the case!

At this point the thread is like trying to argue with a three year old child. It's probably best to give the kid a kiss and put him to bed.

@bobdroege7 only appears to seagull his repetitive nonsense, then runs away. He seems unwilling to engage, especially with anyone who understands more than he does.

 

[Mojo]

@bobdroege7 only appears to seagull his repetitive nonsense, then runs away. He seems unwilling to engage, especially with anyone who understands more than he does.

Does he realise that we've already had all this stuff repeated ad nauseam by Jabba?

 

[catsmate]

Does he realise that we've already had all this stuff repeated ad nauseam by Jabba?

Yes. And Hugh Farey paid JREF a visit too.
Also @bobdroege7 repeats himself and nauseam anyway.

 

[Pacal]

Who did Pierre d'Arcis send the letter too?

Pierre D'Acris, Bishop of Troyes sent the letter to the Avignon Pope Clement VII in 1389. I would think the opening sentence would give a clue about who he sent the letter too: "The case Holy Father, stands thus." (At this time there was a Papal Schism with a Pope in Rome and one based in Avignon. At the time France, where Troyes is located, recognized the Avignon Pope has the true Pope.)

 

[catsmate]

It would seem that @bobdroege7 has abandoned his attempts to prove the Lirey cloth is the shroud of Jesus.

 

[catsmate]

OK, before we abandon this thread to descend down the R&P pages, like the proverbial two-bob bit in a Woodbine machine, I do plan to address Helmut Felzmann.

Who the hell is Helmut Felzmann I (metaphorically) hear you ask?
He is a shroudie, naturally, whose belief that the Lirey cloth is proof that Jesus did exist and survived the crucification and thus, well you'll have to wait 'til I'm at my desk for more.

His lunatic theories appear to be what @bobdroege7 believes in regarding the cloth.

 

[catsmate]

So, on to Dr. Helmet Felzmann.

The 'doctor' is important as Felzman used it to lend an air of authority to both his religious rants and to his 'day job', which is as a psychotherapist and 'life coach'.
His doctorate is in business administration.....

Felzmann is the main proponent of the theory which I'll summarise as 'Jesus lived'

• Others include (or included, most are actually now dead) Miguel Acosta, Wolfgang Bonte and Norman Lee, plus the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

It's based on his (or their) beliefs that Jesus didn't lie and was resurrected, this being "proved" to them by:
1. The excessive amount of blood on the cloth.
1R. There is no evidence of any blood. Plus the other scientists who've spent time, far to much time in my opinion, examining the shroud disagree in the opinion that a live body was required.
2. The image is too uniform to be that of a corpse.
1R. This is kinda obviously nonsensical as one would expect a uniform image from a dead body, not a living, breathing, moving one.

Felzmann goes on to assert, in his various books, that the not-dead Jesus goes on to continue to preach, accompanied by his folllowers and the Essenes wre also involved. Why no-one else noticed this and mentioned it to the Romans, who tended to prefer their executed rabble-rousers to remain dead. is hand-waved away. Though a Jewish priest, Caiaphas. and his followers do pursue Jesus.
Soon afterwards Jesus dies.

Given that this idea contradicts pretty much all of xianity (and most of Island and Judaism) it's not popular with the generally god-bothering shroudies. It does provide a "logical" (for certain values of "logical") reason for the church to fake the radiocarbon dating of the cloth (which @bobdroege7 had back-tracked on).

Naturally Felzmann, like many other shroudies, has tried to discredit the radiocarbon dating process. This he failed to do of course, and see-saws between "the Archbishop done it" and the well-worm magic patch nonsense.

Oddly, Felzmann, in attempting to explain the source of the cloth image, relies on Rogers' claims regarding body washing (with soapwart) which created the image. However Rogers' claims explicitly required a decomposing body for his theory.
Of course as we know from McCrone's excellent work pigment is a vastly more plausible mechanism.

The lack of scientific understanding and rigour on the part of Felzmann is very apparent. But then he's an MBA and this is pretty typical for such.

To summarise, fringe nonsense even by shroudie standards.

 

[arthwollipot]

Mike Hall talks about the Shroud of Turin in the latest episode of Skeptics With A K:

Episode #405 | Skeptics with a K | Merseyside Skeptics Society

<p>Marsh looks at the influencer campaign which is 'redefining energy' (and won't leave us alone), while Mike talks about renewed media interest in the Shroud of Turin.</p><p>You can sign up for the dedicated new Skeptics with a K Patreon at <a...

www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk

(fast forward to 17:00 for the beginning of the segment)

 

[The Norseman]

Does he realise that we've already had all this stuff repeated ad nauseam by Jabba?

He should.

By happenstance, I had dug out old notes I had cut/pasted from those original (to me) Jabba n' shroud threads and looking them over, lo and behold, whose name do I spy amongst them but bobdroege7. Making the same claims then as now.

Frankly, I don't consider any issue brought up at this point to be done in good faith.

 

[catsmate]

Mike Hall talks about the Shroud of Turin in the latest episode of Skeptics With A K:

Episode #405 | Skeptics with a K | Merseyside Skeptics Society

<p>Marsh looks at the influencer campaign which is 'redefining energy' (and won't leave us alone), while Mike talks about renewed media interest in the Shroud of Turin.</p><p>You can sign up for the dedicated new Skeptics with a K Patreon at <a...

www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk

(fast forward to 17:00 for the beginning of the segment)

I think that may be due to an ongoing series of lunatic attacks on the radiocarbon dating by one Stephen E. Jones (not that 911 one) who's alleging computer hacking, a suborned tech, and a KGB plot to discrdit xianity.

He's a pretty awful person, he started harassing the family of an Arizona tech who killed himself, and was un-personed by most of the mainstream shroudie groups.

Assuming @bobdroege7 has fled the thread I may cover some of his drivel in the future.

 

[catsmate]

The Lunacy of Stephen E. Jones.
Firstly I must repeat this is the shroud related nonsense of the Australian Stephen E. Jones, not to be confused with the USAian religous fruitcake "Dr." Stephen E. Jones ("doctorate" in theology from an unaccredited xian institution) or our old friend Dr. Steven E. Jones, 911 nutter.
Do not mix your crackpots.

This Jones is a former (I believe) high/secondary school biology teacher from Perth. In addition to his shroud related nonsense he's an evolution denier and old earth creationist. Within those fields he's best known for inaccurate attribution, lying, misrepresentation and quote mining.

So, not exactly starting from a good place regarding scientific credibility.

Wrt the Lirey cloth Jones' overall claim is of deliberate fraud orchestrated by the KGB to discredit xianity. He throws a lot of mud around in order to try and support this drivel. Wrt other shroudies some use his ideas, or usually parts of them, to support their own assertions of authenticity. Others detest him (e.g. David Rolfe with whom Jones has had a long running fued after his [Jpnes'] nonsense was omitted from a British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter). His intrusive "investigations" and speculations into the suicide of Timothy Linick, one of the Tuscon techs, disturbs some shroudies. Others don't seem to care much.

Onto Jones' arguments.

1. Date Conversion.
He claims that radiocarbon dates in ‘Before Present’ format, as usually generated by the analyses, can be converted to calendar dates by subtracting them from 1950.
This is, of course, nonsense and indicative of scientific illiteracy. In fact the process in more involved (due to the vagaries of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios in the past). The process of conversion of BP to calendar dates is done by calibration against dendrochronological dating standards.

For example, the Nature paper declared that the Shroud most probably dated from between 1260 and 1390, which Jones averages to 1325,. He then declares, for some reason best known to himself, "which just happens to be exactly 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey". Why he does this isn't known, but may relate to the aforementioned scientific illiteracy.
In fact as everyone here should known (You have read ‘Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin’ by Paul Damon et al, I hope?) the data shows that the Shroud probably does not date to 1325.
The 95% certainty ranges are 1262-1312 and 1353-1384. The years 1313-1352 are excluded from these ranges.

2. The Hacker.
Th core Jones' claim is that someone, he specifically names the deceased Timothy Linick, deliberately introduced a sequence into the computers sued at all three sites to alter the date.
This is of course utter drivel.

Enter Clifford Stoll. I assume everyone remembers the discovery in 1986 at USB of unauthorised access to a network connecting numerous facilities all over the United States? If not go read The Cuckoo’s Egg. The person reponsible was a German hacker called Marcus Hess. Hess and a few confederate acquired information from about four hundred military and university computers and sold it to the USSR (remember that?).
Most were arrested or surrendered, some got involved with XX operations, but one of them, Karl Koch (aka Harbard) was found dead in a burnt-out car near Hanover on 01JUN1989 some twelve days after he disappeared. His death was officially ruled suicide though many are skeptical about this.

What has this to do with the radiocarbon dating of the Lirey cloth? Nothing in the Real World, but in the fevered brain of Mr. Jones this is vital.
You see, one of the Arizona lab team, the aforementioned Timothy Linick was also found dead, just three days after Karl Koch, at home in Arizona.
In the Real World this is just a tragic incident, the suicide of a long-term sufferer from depression. There is absolutely nothing to connect the two deaths. This doesn't stop Jones from claiming that Linick, like Koch, was murdered by the KGB to prevent him leaking his activity. Which was falsifying the radiocarbon dates.

At this point even Dan Brown fans would be looking at Jones askance.

Jones claims that the same code, developed by Linick (despite his lack of expertise in computer programming) could be installed on the control computers in each laboratory by Koch.

Minor details like code compatibility, the lack of network connectivity for the systems and the fact that Koch never travelled to Zurich or Oxford during the testing period with a magic tape reel, are glossed over, in the manner of a poorly researched airport technothriller. Koch was in fact in supervised drug rehab at the time, or on police supervised release (sans passport).

Summary.
It's nonsense mixed with religious bias.

 

[catsmate]

Aaargh.
Two minor points.
1. Jones is also a big proponent of the Pray Codex image in the shroud theory, as promulgated by @bobdroege7. despite the silliness of this idea.

2. While talking with SO#2 today about this, she informed me of an experiment in the UK where a hanged man's body was crucified, For Science!.
Well it was 1801....

On 02NOV1801 immediately after he was pronounced dead at Newgate the body of one James Legg was cut down and crucified, in the cause of science (well more art apparently). The experimentalists had prepared a shed with a cross in it beforehand.

.....a building was erected near the place of the execution; a cross provided. The subject was nailed on the cross; the cross suspended…the body, being warm, fell into the position that a dead body must fall into…When cool, a cast was made, under the direction of Mr Banks, and when the mob was dispersed it was removed to my theatre

After cooling, and presumably rigid, plaster casts were made of the body, still in its crucified position, first intact, and then after having had the skin and subcutaneous fat surgically removed.
Ah, the good old days of practical experimentalism. I wonder could one leave one's body for this purpose today?

This procedure was carried out by the eminent surgeon Joseph Constantine Carpue (quoted above) at the request of three artists and Royal Academicians (sculptor Thomas Banks and painters Benjamin West and Richard Cosway) to prove their contention that most depictions of the xian crucifixion were anatomically incorrect.

• At that time, before the 1832 Act, écorchés (casts of flayed cadavers) were important teaching aids for those studying anatomy, both physicians and artists.
• The corpse became available due to a dispute between two Chelsea Pensioners which ended in homicide and execution.

After the removal of the cooled, crucified, corpse, Carpue flayed it and Banks made another cast. These casts, and the body, were exhibited (to
considerable interest), to the public at Banks' London studio. The following year he had them moved to the RA, hoping that they

... might be useful to the Students of the Royal Academy & also to the professor of Anatomy at the time of his giving his lectures as they may be mov'd from the Antique Academy to the Lecture room & back again with very little trouble.

In 1822 the two casts were removed to Carpue's own anatomical museum and then to the studio of the sculptor William Behnes. During the later 19th century they were displayed together in the dissecting room of St. George's Hospital medical school. By 1917, however, the écorché cast had been returned to the Royal Academy where it narrowly missed being hit by a Zeppelin bomb. It still hangs in the life-drawing room of the Royal Academy where it forms part of a wider collection of anatomical casts, drawings and skeletons. Its companion has been lost in time.


Fascinating stuff. But why is it relevant to the shroud? Look at the images of the body and compare them to the image on the Lirey cloth; they are nothing alike. This strongly indicates that the image is not, and probably wasn't intended to be, a man in rigor mortis.

 

[pgwenthold]

Ah, the good old days of practical experimentalism. I wonder could one leave one's body for this purpose today?

I don't know if you can do that, but you can leave your body to the Body Farm in Tennessee, where they investigate things like the forensics of leaving your body in a plastic garbage bag in the back of a car trunk to determine the rate of maggot growth.

 

[junkshop]

I don't know if you can do that, but you can leave your body to the Body Farm in Tennessee, where they investigate things like the forensics of leaving your body in a plastic garbage bag in the back of a car trunk to determine the rate of maggot growth.

I don't know if we have an equivalent in the UK, but this idea appeals to me. I like the idea that my meat and bones could be useful after I don't need them anymore.

At the same time I like the idea of being buried, so that future archaeologists have stuff to dig up in order to learn how we lived and what we died of. Also, I've always liked fancy mausoleums. I'm nowhere near rich or notable enough to have one, but they are kinda cool.

Ultimately, it's not my decision. And even if it were, I wouldn't know or be aware one way or the other (what with the whole being dead thing).

The only thing that I know for certain is that my suggestion that I be taxidermied leaning nonchalantly on the mantlepiece and smoking a pipe has been roundly rejected by every single member of my family.

 

[catsmate]

I don't know if you can do that, but you can leave your body to the Body Farm in Tennessee, where they investigate things like the forensics of leaving your body in a plastic garbage bag in the back of a car trunk to determine the rate of maggot growth.

I don't know if we have an equivalent in the UK, but this idea appeals to me. I like the idea that my meat and bones could be useful after I don't need them anymore.

At the same time I like the idea of being buried, so that future archaeologists have stuff to dig up in order to learn how we lived and what we died of. Also, I've always liked fancy mausoleums. I'm nowhere near rich or notable enough to have one, but they are kinda cool.

Ultimately, it's not my decision. And even if it were, I wouldn't know or be aware one way or the other (what with the whole being dead thing).

The only thing that I know for certain is that my suggestion that I be taxidermied leaning nonchalantly on the mantlepiece and smoking a pipe has been roundly rejected by every single member of my family.

There are eight 'Body Farms' operational in the USA and one in Canada. Alas, those of us in Europe are less equipped in taphonomic research, the only facility is in the Netherlands.

BTW the reason Bass (who's still around at 95) set up the original is very interesting; he screwed up a ToD estimate, very badly, but didn't try and hide it, and initiated the programme to gain better data.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't know if we have an equivalent in the UK, but this idea appeals to me. I like the idea that my meat and bones could be useful after I don't need them anymore.

...

As of 2023, there wasn't one, but there's a campaign to start one.

Professor Anna Williams speaking at QEDCon 2023, Does the UK Need a Body Farm.