• 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?"

*sees "No thanks" at top of thread page. Cryptic. Mysterious. Has moment of existential angst wondering if it is worth it to back up to the previous page to see what the hell arth is talking about. Decides to give it a miss and die not knowing the answer to this riddle*
 
catsmate said:
It would seem that @bobdroege7 has abandoned his attempts to prove the Lirey cloth is the shroud of Jesus.
Click to expand...
You got me wrong, I am not trying to prove that, it's science not math or distillation of ethanol, so proof is not even possible, I would think you would know that.

I am just showing that the evidence shows the carbon dating was unreliable.

Here is one, but there are numerous papers showing that the samples taken from the shroud are not homogenous, indicating the shroud dating was unreliable.

www.academia.edu

Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments

The twelve results from the 1988 radio carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin show surprising heterogeneity. We try to explain this lack of homogeneity by regression on spatial coordinates. However, although the locations of the samples sent to the
www.academia.edu
 
bobdroege7 said:
I am just showing that the evidence shows the carbon dating was unreliable.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. In your desperate need for the cloth to be genuine, despite the plethora of evidence that it's a medieval creation, you spam garbage at us.
bobdroege7 said:
Here is one, but there are numerous papers showing that the samples taken from the shroud are not homogenous, indicating the shroud dating was unreliable.#
Click to expand...
Again, bollocks. There are a handful of cranks you repetitiously make the same nonsensical assertions and continue to produce "articles" based on those assertions. The facts remains that the cloth was examined extensively before the sampling and the area selected was part of the main cloth, not some magically invisible addition.
bobdroege7 said:
www.academia.edu

Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments

The twelve results from the 1988 radio carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin show surprising heterogeneity. We try to explain this lack of homogeneity by regression on spatial coordinates. However, although the locations of the samples sent to the
www.academia.edu
Click to expand...
Yeah,. right. This "paper", a posting to an unreviewed website, demonstrates absolutely nothing. Atkinson, like his cronies Riani, Fanti and Crosilla, don't even come to a conclusion? Have you actually bothered to read this "paper", or are you back to spamming random Google results to this forum?

It's actually amusing that Atkinson, et al, produce this nonsense as their speculations don't even conform to the actual usage of the sampled material by the three laboratories.
In other world, more shroudie pseudo-scientific garbage.

In summary.
1. The claims of Atkinson et al are nonsense.
2. They don't effect the reliability of the radiocarbon dating in the slightest.
3. They don't address all the other data showing the Lirey cloth is a medieval fabrication.
 
catsmate said:
Bollocks. In your desperate need for the cloth to be genuine, despite the plethora of evidence that it's a medieval creation, you spam garbage at us.

Again, bollocks. There are a handful of cranks you repetitiously make the same nonsensical assertions and continue to produce "articles" based on those assertions. The facts remains that the cloth was examined extensively before the sampling and the area selected was part of the main cloth, not some magically invisible addition.

Yeah,. right. This "paper", a posting to an unreviewed website, demonstrates absolutely nothing. Atkinson, like his cronies Riani, Fanti and Crosilla, don't even come to a conclusion? Have you actually bothered to read this "paper", or are you back to spamming random Google results to this forum?

It's actually amusing that Atkinson, et al, produce this nonsense as their speculations don't even conform to the actual usage of the sampled material by the three laboratories.
In other world, more shroudie pseudo-scientific garbage.

In summary.
1. The claims of Atkinson et al are nonsense.
2. They don't effect the reliability of the radiocarbon dating in the slightest.
3. They don't address all the other data showing the Lirey cloth is a medieval fabrication.
Click to expand...
First, one reference is not spamming.

Second, you appear to be unaware of where the samples for the Damon paper were from, in other words, the samples were not from the main cloth, but from the edge next to where the Raes samples was taken.

Third, you claim Atkinson et al do not come to a conclusion, well here it is: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of a strong linear trend the twelve measurements of the age of the TS cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity."

Which reflects what was originally presented in the original Damon paper, that there was inhomogeneity in the samples taken. I guess I have to ask you what inhomogeneity means, since it seems to be beyond you.

With respect to inhomogeneity, Atkinson is on the same page as Damon, so not nonsense.

The reliability of radiocarbon dating is not the issue, the issue is the sampling.

And next to lastly, the only piece of evidence that shows the shroud to be a medieval fabrication is the Damon paper.

And now lastly, the size of the components of the image are 200 to 600 nanometers, far too small to be made by painting because that is smaller than any fiber of any paintbrush.
 
Dude. So what?

You think you've poked holes in the overwhelming amount of evidence of 14th century origin of this cloth. You haven't. No one has.

But.

Even if there was zero evidence supporting a 14th century origin -- a complete blank slate in a sense -- no one, including you, has ANY evidence whatsoever of the history of this cloth from the first century. No providence what. so. ever.

There exists some vague claims made in the bible (which this cloth does not even match in the first place but I'll set it aside for the greater point) and then a thousand-plus years later, this cloth shows up.

Please produce the EVIDENCE which CONCLUSIVELY tracks this cloth from the 14th century to the first.

You can't. Because there isn't any.

Therefore, this cloth cannot be shown to be related to the (probably mythical) Jesus character as depicted in the bible. It cannot be anyone's first century burial shroud.

Seriously. That's it. Either pony up or canter on out of here.
 
bobdroege7 said:
First, one reference is not spamming.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Sigh. Your pattern of behavious is dropping links into this thread as if they support your various assertions. When it's pointed out to you that, as often is the case, that they don't.
bobdroege7 said:
Second, you appear to be unaware of where the samples for the Damon paper were from, in other words, the samples were not from the main cloth, but from the edge next to where the Raes samples was taken.
Click to expand...
"Not from the main cloth" is an outright lie.
bobdroege7 said:
Third, you claim Atkinson et al do not come to a conclusion, well here it is: "Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of a strong linear trend the twelve measurements of the age of the TS cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity."
Click to expand...
Yep. He's talking nonsense because, as he admits, he doesn't know where the sub-samples came from. And he actually gets the samples wromng too.
Nonsense.

bobdroege7 said:
Which reflects what was originally presented in the original Damon paper, that there was inhomogeneity in the samples taken. I guess I have to ask you what inhomogeneity means, since it seems to be beyond you.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Oh look, more childish insults. Yes I know what the shroudies keep claiming, I also know it's simple not true,.

bobdroege7 said:
With respect to inhomogeneity, Atkinson is on the same page as Damon, so not nonsense.
Click to expand...
No he's not. Firstly as Atkinson is forced to admit he doesn't actually know the order of the samples, hence his "gradient" claims is rather dubious.
Damon, the principal author of original Nature paper regarding the radiocarbon results, made no such claims.

Shroud RC results.jpg

bobdroege7 said:
The reliability of radiocarbon dating is not the issue, the issue is the sampling.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Oh the frantic back-peddling....

The samples were fine. The experts discussed the sampling location, the cuts were made, the samples decontaminated and the tests run. You can either accept reality, that the shroud is a medieval construction, or indulge in further fantasisintg.

bobdroege7 said:
And next to lastly, the only piece of evidence that shows the shroud to be a medieval fabrication is the Damon paper.
Click to expand...
Bollocks.
I know you've run away, time after time, from addressing the other evidence for the medieval original of the shroud, but they're not going away.

But, as you've apparently gone into full fringe reset mode:

The evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure. This strongly suggests the shroud only came into existence in the medieval period, rather than the first century.

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough), at least for the vast majority of humanity.

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period. Likewise the stylised coverage of the genitals.

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue



bobdroege7 said:
And now lastly, the size of the components of the image are 200 to 600 nanometers, far too small to be made by painting because that is smaller than any fiber of any paintbrush.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief...... This is really beyond stupid.
 
BTW, @bobdroege7 you stated that "the samples were not from the main cloth, but from the edge next to where the Raes samples was taken", but in what way is that not part of the "main cloth"?
What exactly is the "main cloth"?
 
Mojo said:
One that is much older that the "Turin shroud".
Click to expand...
But it's just bizarre to me that anyone with a moderately functional brain can keep maintaining that the sampled area was a patch or invisibly re-woven or magically contaminated or whatever the nonsense due jour is, in the face of the expertise directed at the selection of the sampled area, both before the dating process started and subsequently. It's reality denial in it's crudest form, pure "I don't like the result so it must be wrong" magical thinking.
 
catsmate said:
But it's just bizarre to me that anyone with a moderately functional brain can keep maintaining that the sampled area was a patch or invisibly re-woven or magically contaminated or whatever the nonsense due jour is, in the face of the expertise directed at the selection of the sampled area, both before the dating process started and subsequently. It's reality denial in it's crudest form, pure "I don't like the result so it must be wrong" magical thinking.
Click to expand...
And the carbon dating is no more than the cherry on the icing.
 
catsmate said:
But it's just bizarre to me that anyone with a moderately functional brain can keep maintaining that the sampled area was a patch or invisibly re-woven or magically contaminated or whatever the nonsense due jour is, in the face of the expertise directed at the selection of the sampled area, both before the dating process started and subsequently. It's reality denial in it's crudest form, pure "I don't like the result so it must be wrong" magical thinking.
Click to expand...
And amazing as well.

Cotton was found woven into the sampled area.

That's conclusive evidence of a repair, reweave, or a patch.

Because, according to the Pentateuch, Jews are not allowed to wear cloths woven of different fibers.
 
catsmate said:
BTW, @bobdroege7 you stated that "the samples were not from the main cloth, but from the edge next to where the Raes samples was taken", but in what way is that not part of the "main cloth"?
What exactly is the "main cloth"?
Click to expand...
The main cloth is the main part of the cloth, free from any patches, reweaves, or repairs.

Or any part that is pure linen, like the cloth as originally woven.
 
catsmate said:
But it's just bizarre to me that anyone with a moderately functional brain can keep maintaining that the sampled area was a patch or invisibly re-woven or magically contaminated or whatever the nonsense due jour is, in the face of the expertise directed at the selection of the sampled area, both before the dating process started and subsequently. It's reality denial in it's crudest form, pure "I don't like the result so it must be wrong" magical thinking.
Click to expand...
Please provide evidence that any experts decided where to sample the shroud.

Please provide evidence for all the areas of the shroud that were repaired, patched, or rewoven.

The data shows the dating failed statistical testing, ie a failed chi^2 test and a p value less than 0.05.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom