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

[catsmate]

Apparently you've done no research on the reliability of the New Testament. Some sources for you:

Oh good grief, you're actually trying to claim apologetic drivel as proof.

Pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

The Pray Codex shows an L-shaped pattern of small round shapes. Nothing indicates that they are burn holes. They could just as easily represent buttons. They also don't appear on the burial cloth, which lies crumpled at the angel's feet.

You know what else doesn't appear on that burial cloth? An image. There's no Shroud here. Just Shroudies imagining things.

There's also the matter of the Codex showing supposed burns that hadn't happened yet.

Nothing suggests the feature in question is a cloth. It is rigid, and looks more like a sarcophagus lid than a cloth. Also, as mentioned above, the burial cloth appears elsewhere in the image. Nor does the concentric staircase pattern look anything like a herringbone pattern. A child could tell the difference. A child could probably *draw* the difference. Perhaps some Shroudies could not.

Indeed.

 

[catsmate]

If it is incorrect, then provide a source with evidence that it is incorrect.

No. You made the claim, you support it.

You know, some "shroudies" and that is an offensive slur, have way more education and training than you.

And some are idiots. Actually most are idiots.

Your desperate use of ad hominem attacks put your arguments, if you provide any, on very shaky ground.

Sigh. You still don't understand what 'ad hominem' means, do you.

And the source was a Rabbi, definitely not a "shroudie"

And yet he's an "associate at the Polish Syndonological Institute.....

 

[JayUtah]

Oh good grief. What has this to do with the Lirey cloth.

If you retrace the quote chain, you arrive at a post in which both the Lirey cloth and the Maillard reaction were mentioned. In response to the second half of the post, @bobdroege7 claimed he had already provided evidence for a room temperature Maillard reaction, and it was in his response to that half of the post that he provided a link to an article which has indeed already been discussed.

As I mentioned, the claim regarding the Maillard reaction has suffered a hairsplit in which the other premise of the model has been forgotten. Maillard reactions do, in fact, occur at room temperature, but only over periods of weeks, months, or years. They are very slow at room temperature. The imprint model being proposed would require the reaction to occur in only 36 hours, and at room temperature. To date, he has produced neither a chemical-analysis argument or an empirical demonstration of a Maillard reaction occurring at room temperature in 36 hours or less involving the substances argued to be present.

 

[catsmate]

If you retrace the quote chain, you arrive at a post in which both the Lirey cloth and the Maillard reaction were mentioned. In response to the second half of the post, @bobdroege7 claimed he had already provided evidence for a room temperature Maillard reaction, and it was in his response to that half of the post that he provided a link to an article which has indeed already been discussed.

As I mentioned, the claim regarding the Maillard reaction has suffered a hairsplit in which the other premise of the model has been forgotten. Maillard reactions do, in fact, occur at room temperature, but only over periods of weeks, months, or years. They are very slow at room temperature. The imprint model being proposed would require the reaction to occur in only 36 hours, and at room temperature. To date, he has produced neither a chemical-analysis argument or an empirical demonstration of a Maillard reaction occurring at room temperature in 36 hours or less involving the substances argued to be present.

Thank you.

 

[Darat]

My claim is that the image is caused by a cloth draped over a living body, and that would produce a distorted image.

And you are going to have to provide evidence that the proportions are wrong, and that you have to know how the image was produced.

You don't have that, and neither do I, so let's stick to evidence.

And you have not produced evidence that disputes my claims, you only think you have, but that's only your opinion.

But it would not create an image distorted in the way the shroud image is distorted. People in this thread have pointed out what draping a cloth over a body would create, for example the ears, the shroud image doesn’t show that distortion.

 

[JayUtah]

But it would not create an image distorted in the way the shroud image is distorted. People in this thread have pointed out what draping a cloth over a body would create, for example the ears, the shroud image doesn’t show that distortion.

What I find non-credible is the size of the head compared with the apparent length of the body. The head is too small. Further, the scrunched position that some say was achieved in order to cover the genitals with the crossed hands would tend to amplify the anomaly, not correct for it.

 

[bobdroege7]

Okay. Your claim = your burden of proof. If you aren't claiming any supernatural occurrence, why can't you reproduce the shroud image simply using a living person and some linen cloth? Why can't anyone?


You stipulated that the image is distorted.

It is, take a look at the hands on the shroud.

 

[bobdroege7]

You're claiming it's an image formed by contact with the body, and not a painting, remember?

Then it would need to show a gap where the victim was not touching cloth, rather than the front view being directly in contact with the back view.

There looks to be a gap between the front head and the back head.

Are we looking at the same shroud?

 

[bobdroege7]

Okay. Your claim = your burden of proof. If you aren't claiming any supernatural occurrence, why can't you reproduce the shroud image simply using a living person and some linen cloth? Why can't anyone?


You stipulated that the image is distorted.

It's been replicated, although not totally exact.

Others on the thread have made the claim that it has been replicated.

 

[bobdroege7]

Asked and answered. As we showed before, this article doesn't support the claim that a room-temperature Maillard reaction will occur in 36 hours. That's part of the claim.

Esquire, let me quote:

"
Although the Maillard reaction occurs at room temperature, heat at 140 to 165 °C (284 to 329 °F) aids the reaction. The initial reaction between the sugar and the amino acid is favored under alkaline conditions."

 

[mikegriffith1]

What I find non-credible is the size of the head compared with the apparent length of the body. The head is too small. Further, the scrunched position that some say was achieved in order to cover the genitals with the crossed hands would tend to amplify the anomaly, not correct for it.

Well now that's curious, because anthropologists and forensic experts have said the body and head are in correct proportion to each other when you factor in the dynamics of an image projected onto a linen cloth. This is discussed in the documentary The Real Face of Jesus?

Let's get back to the crucial issue of blood stains on the Shroud. In 2018, a team led by forensic anthropologist Matteo Borrini announced with great fanfare that their analysis concluded that the blood stains were unrealistic. Their "analysis" is a prime example of scientists missing the forest for the trees and making embarrassing errors.

Borrini's team cited the fact that two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle, while the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. "A person," said these experts, "couldn't be in these two positions at once" (LINK). Apparently it never occurred to them to factor in the fact that Jesus's arms would have been at a 45-degree angle while nailed on the cross but that his arms, along with the rest of his body, would have changed position several times while he was (1) scourged before he was crucified, (2) forced to carry his cross part of the way to the crucifixion site, (3) taken down from the cross, (4) carried to the tomb, and (5) laid down and then wrapped in the burial cloth.

Last year, a much more thorough analysis of the blood stains concluded they are authentic. The study, titled "New Insights on Blood Evidence from the Turin Shroud Consistent with Jesus Christ’s Tortures" and published in Hematology Case Reports and Reviews, was done by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurements at the University of Padua in Italy.

Among many other findings, Professor Fanti determined that nanoparticles found in the blood “recognized as creatinine” are consistent with “the very heavy torture suffered by Jesus,” adding that “the high level of urea hypothesized” in some of the blood “implies renal … malfunction or blockage, which is a condition compatible with intense flagellation … in the area of the kidneys, causing microcytic anemia.”

Fanti also found that the bloodstains on the side and the front of the Shroud show blood flowing in three different directions: vertical with the body in an upright position, inclined at a 45-degree angle, and horizontal with the corpse resting on its side. But, unlike the Borrini team, Fonti recognized that this can be explained by the several movements that Christ's body underwent, pointing out that “the single rivulets show a sudden change of their direction" and that "it is probable that the blood flows streamed when the corpse was moved.”

 

[bobdroege7]

If you retrace the quote chain, you arrive at a post in which both the Lirey cloth and the Maillard reaction were mentioned. In response to the second half of the post, @bobdroege7 claimed he had already provided evidence for a room temperature Maillard reaction, and it was in his response to that half of the post that he provided a link to an article which has indeed already been discussed.

As I mentioned, the claim regarding the Maillard reaction has suffered a hairsplit in which the other premise of the model has been forgotten. Maillard reactions do, in fact, occur at room temperature, but only over periods of weeks, months, or years. They are very slow at room temperature. The imprint model being proposed would require the reaction to occur in only 36 hours, and at room temperature. To date, he has produced neither a chemical-analysis argument or an empirical demonstration of a Maillard reaction occurring at room temperature in 36 hours or less involving the substances argued to be present.

Temperatures in Israel can be as high as 104 F in April. That's 40 C for you continentals. A little higher than room temperature.

It was not claimed by me as the actual mechanism that produced the image, just as a hypothesis for how the image could be produced.

Still, nobody knows exactly how the image was formed.

 

[JayUtah]

It is, take a look at the hands on the shroud.

Yes, I agree that the image on the shroud is distorted in many respects and therefore does not credibly represent the imprint of a human body.

It's been replicated, although not totally exact.

So not replicated.

Others on the thread have made the claim that it has been replicated.

Show me.

Although the Maillard reaction occurs at room temperature, heat at 140 to 165 °C (284 to 329 °F) aids the reaction.

Show how the temperatures experienced in the tomb would have created a visible Maillard reaction in 36 hours.

Temperatures in Israel can be as high as 104 F in April.

I've been to Jerusalem many times, in all parts of the year, in many places including both the church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb. I'll keep my own judgement about whether those temperatures are credible. Further, temperatures 2,000 years ago were cooler in that part of the world than they are now.

It was not claimed by me as the actual mechanism that produced the image, just as a hypothesis for how the image could be produced.

You cited it as your preferred hypothesis.

Still, nobody knows exactly how the image was formed.

Correct. However, the mechanism you propose is easily reproducible. The fact that no reproduction has succeeded is sufficient to reject it as a credible hypothesis.

It's commendable that you're willing to admit that no demonstrable hypothesis exists for the natural formation of the shroud image, and that you are at best only able to marshal some marginally viable speculations. However, it is disingenuous of you to set this as a standard of proof for the authenticist claims and then to impose a much higher standard of proof for hypotheses of an artificial production.

 

[JayUtah]

Well now that's curious, because anthropologists and forensic experts have said the body and head are in correct proportion to each other when you factor in the dynamics of an image projected onto a linen cloth. This is discussed in the documentary The Real Face of Jesus?

Asked and answered.

 

[bobdroege7]

Yes, I agree that the image on the shroud is distorted in many respects and therefore does not credibly represent the imprint of a human body.


So not replicated.


Show me.


Show how the temperatures experienced in the tomb would have created a visible Maillard reaction in 36 hours.


I've been to Jerusalem many times, in all parts of the year, in many places including both the church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb. I'll keep my own judgement about whether those temperatures are credible. Further, temperatures 2,000 years ago were cooler in that part of the world than they are now.


You cited it as your preferred hypothesis.


Correct. However, the mechanism you propose is easily reproducible. The fact that no reproduction has succeeded is sufficient to reject it as a credible hypothesis.

It's commendable that you're willing to admit that no demonstrable hypothesis exists for the natural formation of the shroud image, and that you are at best only able to marshal some marginally viable speculations. However, it is disingenuous of you to set this as a standard of proof for the authenticist claims and then to impose a much higher standard of proof for hypotheses of an artificial production.

Have you heard of the Roman Warm Period, where the Mediterranean sea was 2 C warmer than it is today.

Roman Warm Period Was 3.6°F Warmer Than Today, New Study Shows

Roman Empire coincided with the hottest period of the last 2,000 years in the Mediterranean.

climatechangedispatch.com

I am well experienced in debating climate change skeptics, you stepped in it here.

And then councilor, we are not in a courtroom, distillery, or in the Mathematics department, so no positive proofs allowed, only evidence.

Demands for proof can only be in the negative for discussion of Science.

And neither you nor I have produced any evidence that it can be replicated by artificial methods, remember the image is formed on the fibers to a depth of only 400 nanometers, so no painting of any skill level can produce the image.

The image is still best described as a chemical reaction, which chemical reaction is the question.

There have been various levels of success, this is one of them.

file:///C:/Users/bobdr/Downloads/JIST_2010_art00002_L_-Garlaschelli.pdf

And don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

 

[bobdroege7]

And just to note, exactly how much contamination would be required in order to make a sample from 2000 years ago give an age of 700 years in 14C dating?

I've done the math. How many shroudies have?

Contamination is a losing concept. Even dumber than the invisible patch.

I have done my calculations.

And have found that replacing a mere 13% of the shroud sample with 1500 AD material is enough to skew the date by 1234 years.

 

[JayUtah]

I am well experienced in debating climate change skeptics, you stepped in it here.

Fine, I'm not a climate change denier. But I have lived all over the Middle East, and one principle that is commonly repeated when you take tours there is that the temperatures were a lot cooler back then than now. I have no desire to debate with you what the temperatures may have been. The fact remains that the circumstances of the method you are proposing are easily reproduced, yet no one has managed to get it to work. Therefore continuing to insinuate that it's "theoretically" possible is unconvincing.

And neither you nor I have produced any evidence that it can be replicated by artificial methods, remember the image is formed on the fibers to a depth of only 400 nanometers, so no painting of any skill level can produce the image.

Yes, but repeating the requirements of what must be reproduced does not justify your double standard in assessing speculative hypotheses.

The image is still best described as a chemical reaction, which chemical reaction is the question.

Not unreasonable, but saying that it's "some sort of chemical reaction" doesn't distinguish between natural and artificial methods of production.

And don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

The principle you need to establish with evidence and argument is what constitutes good enough. If you want to beg for lenience for body- or corpse-related hypotheses, you don't get to turn into a nitpicky hard-ass when you assess proposals for an artificial production.

 

[catsmate]

Well now that's curious, because anthropologists and forensic experts have said the body and head are in correct proportion to each other when you factor in the dynamics of an image projected onto a linen cloth. #

Sigh. There are plenty of people who demonstrate the image on the Lirey cloth is not that of an undistorted human.

This is discussed in the documentary The Real Face of Jesus?

That's an interesting use of the term "documentary" of which I had not previously been aware....

Let's get back to the crucial issue of blood stains on the Shroud.

There aren't any. Case closed.

<>

Oh good grief, not Fanti again.

 

[catsmate]

Temperatures in Israel can be as high as 104 F in April. That's 40 C for you continentals. A little higher than room temperature.

But still far cooler than your claimed reactions would need.

It was not claimed by me as the actual mechanism that produced the image, just as a hypothesis for how the image could be produced.

Still, nobody knows exactly how the image was formed.

Pained on the cloth about six centuries ago.