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

[catsmate]

It is worth reviewing the evidence that the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud was invalid.

There is none. It all boils down to:
1. Invisible patch. Nope the experts examined the cloth.
2. Contamination. Nope not possible and the cloth samples were expertly cleaned.
3. Magic god radiation. Desperate, nonsensical rubbish.
4. Malfeasance and/or KGB plot. Silly conspiratorial bollocks.

So, the radiocarbon dating stands.

Joseph Marino, a former Benedictine monk, and Sue Benford, a medical nurse, sent a high-quality picture of the area used for the carbon dating to three different textile experts, without telling the experts what the photo showed. Marino and Benford were convinced the area had been patched and that more than one fabric type was evident.

This simply isn't true, as I suspect you already know.
Hell, even other shroudies thought their theory was nonsense.

Prof. Giovani Riggi, who had cut the adjacent C-14 sample, had written in a 1988 Italian publication (Rapporto Sindone) that “fibers of other origin” in the sample were “mixed up with the original fabric.”

And yet Riggi was completely satisfied with the sampling process.....

A scientist named Ronald Hatfield at Beta Analytic, the world’s largest radiocarbon dating lab, wrote that mixed material like that which they believed the Shroud contained (cotton from the 16th century and linen 2,000 years old) would return a 1210 AD date of origin if subjected to carbon dating.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. There is no such patching, as the expert examination has shown.
And, I note, that you're copying and pasting from the BSTS Newsletter without citation.

Benford and Marino discussed this and other evidence in a sourced paper entitled “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs” and presented it to scientists at the Sindone 2000 Worldwide Congress in Orvieto, Italy.

Wow, a shroudie meeting. Great source.....

Rogers, who had done top secret weapons research at Los Alamos,

Oh good grief....

<snippage>

Seriously? I'm not wasting my time on this repetitive, long debunked, drivel.

There is no invisible patch. You are wrong.

 

[catsmate]

Your wall of text is very convincing.

And it's the same nonsense that has already been debunked.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is none. It all boils down to:
1. Invisible patch. Nope the experts examined the cloth.
2. Contamination. Nope not possible and the cloth samples were expertly cleaned.
3. Magic god radiation. Desperate, nonsensical rubbish.
4. Malfeasance and/or KGB plot. Silly conspiratorial bollocks.

So, the radiocarbon dating stands.

This simply isn't true, as I suspect you already know.
Hell, even other shroudies thought their theory was nonsense.

And yet Riggi was completely satisfied with the sampling process.....


This is, of course, utter nonsense. There is no such patching, as the expert examination has shown.
And, I note, that you're copying and pasting from the BSTS Newsletter without citation.

Wow, a shroudie meeting. Great source.....

Oh good grief....

Seriously? I'm not wasting my time on this repetitive, long debunked, drivel.

There is no invisible patch. You are wrong.

This is your answer to the facts I presented??? You cite no experts, provide no links, and just continue with your sweeping, reflexive denials. Where are your cloth experts to respond to the three leading cloth experts consulted by Marino and Benford? How do explain the fact that even Riggi noticed there are two different kinds of material in the sample cut from the Shroud? How do you explain Rogers' microscopic-level examination findings that proved the sample had been patched? How do you explain Dr. Brown's corroborating findings, finding that were based on alternative methods of analysis? How do you explain the vanillin dating analysis? How do you explain the enormous variation in the C-14 dates for the tested sample, which the 1988 scientists failed to disclose in their Nature article and was only discovered after the raw data were finally released years later?

If we were talking about the flat-Earth theory and you accepted it, I imagine our discussion would go like this:

Me: The Earth is round. Satellite photos prove it.

Catsmate: Utter bollocks. Total nonsense. Real scientists reject this.

Me: Topographical measurements prove the Earth is round.

Catsmate: Nope, not possible. So the flat Earth stands.

Me: Literally millions of ships have sailed out of sight from the coast and have not fallen off into space.

Catsmate: I'm not wasting my time on this repetitive, long-debunked drivel.

 

[Darat]

This is your answer to the facts I presented??? You cite no experts, provide no links, and just continue with your sweeping, reflexive denials. Where are your cloth experts to respond to the three leading cloth experts consulted by Marino and Benford? How do explain the fact that even Riggi noticed there are two different kinds of material in the sample cut from the Shroud? How do you explain Rogers' microscopic-level examination findings that proved the sample had been patched? How do you explain Dr. Brown's corroborating findings, finding that were based on alternative methods of analysis? How do you explain the vanillin dating analysis? How do you explain the enormous variation in the C-14 dates for the tested sample, which the 1988 scientists failed to disclose in their Nature article and was only discovered after the raw data were finally released years later?

If we were talking about the flat-Earth theory and you accepted it, I imagine our discussion would go like this:

Me: The Earth is round. Satellite photos prove it.

Catsmate: Utter bollocks. Total nonsense. Real scientists reject this.

Me: Topographical measurements prove the Earth is round.

Catsmate: Nope, not possible. So the flat Earth stands.

Me: Literally millions of ships have sailed out of sight from the coast and have not fallen off into space.

Catsmate: I'm not wasting my time on this repetitive, long-debunked drivel.

You are hardly the first to put forward this nonsense. Check out Catsmate's earlier posts in this thread - he had gone through in detail, with sources debunking your nonsense before you had posted it since you are bringing nothing new to the discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

This is your answer to the facts I presented??? You cite no experts, provide no links, and just continue with your sweeping, reflexive denials.

Blah blah blah.

All this stuff has been discussed previously at length in this thread. You aren't entitled to a lengthy repetition of the debunking just because you failed to read the thread. And you aren't entitled to dictate what form rebuttals take or what content they must have.

You all but dared me to watch The Real Face of Jesus, which I did and gave you a thorough review which you entirely ignored. And I asked you followups to your claims about David Rolfe, which you did not answer. Whining that you're not being engaged in the way you want is not especially convincing.

 

[sackett]

Consider: If the Holy Radiationing of the Cloth was powerful enough to print Jesus's pic on the Shroud, it must've been sufficiently potent to brand the ceiling of the burial chamber with icons, texts, fancy scrollwork, and even god's signature. *

Ask yourselves has anybody ever bothered to genuflect himself in there and look up? I mean, bowing in humble piety is seemly & proper, but for the whole damn time? One glance up and a quick couple of snaps would suffice. You could frame as them simple selfies if the monks object.


* All artists sign their work, so you see? It stands to reason! Amen.

 

[catsmate]

This is your answer to the facts I presented???

You didn't present 'facts'. You presented opinions, distortions errors and outright lies.
As usual.

You cite no experts, provide no links,

Whereas you provide links to the ramblings of shroudies, nonsense debunked many, many times in this thread. But then you have no interest in facts that contradict your beliefs, do you?

and just continue with your sweeping, reflexive denials. Where are your cloth experts to respond to the three leading cloth experts consulted by Marino and Benford?

The ones who confirm the lack of patching? The ones who've actually studied the Lirey cloth in person? Start with the late Mechtilde Fleury-Lemburg and Franco Testore and do some research among actual experts,

How do explain the fact that even Riggi noticed there are two different kinds of material in the sample cut from the Shroud?

Nope.

How do you explain Rogers' microscopic-level examination findings that proved the sample had been patched?

Because it didn't. Hell, as has been pointed out to you several times, there is no evidence he ever examined fibres from the Lirey cloth.

How do you explain Dr. Brown's corroborating findings, finding that were based on alternative methods of analysis?

There are no "corroborating findings". There's just one shroudie after another pontificating on alleged cloth threads.

How do you explain the vanillin dating analysis?

As shown before, it's scientific drivel.

How do you explain the enormous variation in the C-14 dates for the tested sample

Because there is no such "enormous variation"

, which the 1988 scientists failed to disclose in their Nature article and was only discovered after the raw data were finally released years later?

The data was available and referred to. There was no magic smoking gun.

<strawman drivel>

Try and grow up.

 

[bobdroege7]

But still far cooler than your claimed reactions would need.



Pained on the cloth about six centuries ago.

I have offered evidence that the reaction could occur at room temperature, and that the conditions of the man in the shroud was higher than that.

No brush strokes, no pigments therefore not painted.

 

[bobdroege7]

Hey, Bob, can you share your C: drive with the internet at large so we can view the file? /s

Noting the sarc tag, but no, anyway I didn't do the calculations on my computer.

I did them by hand, 2 equations in two variables.

And, yes I did flip my x and y.

87% percent contamination, not 13.

 

[catsmate]

I have offered evidence that the reaction could occur at room temperature, and that the conditions of the man in the shroud was higher than that.

No brush strokes, no pigments therefore not painted.

Except for the pigments......

 

[catsmate]

Noting the sarc tag, but no, anyway I didn't do the calculations on my computer.

I did them by hand, 2 equations in two variables.

And, yes I did flip my x and y.

87% percent contamination, not 13.

Do you not think that the various experts who examined the Lirey cloth might have noticed this? And what the nature of the magic contamination that survived manual cleaning, ultrasonics, hot ether, hot hydrochloric acid, hot sodium hydroxide and bleach.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I have offered evidence that the reaction could occur at room temperature, and that the conditions of the man in the shroud was higher than that.

If it were really feasible to produce a significant Maillard reaction at room temperature, bakers would be doing it.

They arent, because it isn't.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The ones who confirm the lack of patching? The ones who've actually studied the Lirey cloth in person? Start with the late Mechtilde Fleury-Lemburg and Franco Testore and do some research among actual experts,

Shroudies have an interesting relationship to Fleury-Lemberg. They like to cite her as the most world-leadingest expurt evarr when they are arguing that the Shroud's weave is consistent with 1st century Judea, but they also studiously ignore the fact that she reported *at* a Shroudie conference, that there was no evidence for their beloved patches.

 

[catsmate]

Shroudies have an interesting relationship to Fleury-Lemberg. They like to cite her as the most world-leadingest expurt evarr when they are arguing that the Shroud's weave is consistent with 1st century Judea, but they also studiously ignore the fact that she reported *at* a Shroudie conference, that there was no evidence for their beloved patches.

There is a lot of selective quotation among cultists.

 

[zooterkin]

I have offered evidence that the reaction could occur at room temperature, and that the conditions of the man in the shroud was higher than that.

No brush strokes, no pigments therefore not painted.

Do you imagine that brushes are the only way to apply pigment?

 

[catsmate]

And, while we're on the subject of the herringbone weave, @bobdroege7 were are the examples of such a weave from first century Judea?
And I note you have failed to support your assertion of two previous radiocarbon datings of the alleged shroud with citations. So @bobdroege7 when will you be doing so?

 

[catsmate]

Do you imagine that brushes are the only way to apply pigment?

Indeed, 'dabbing' was previously referenced with regard to duplication of the Lirey cloth.

 

[bobdroege7]

Do you not think that the various experts who examined the Lirey cloth might have noticed this? And what the nature of the magic contamination that survived manual cleaning, ultrasonics, hot ether, hot hydrochloric acid, hot sodium hydroxide and bleach.

I don't think these various unnamed experts actually had any input into the selection of the location of the sample.

If the contamination is actually threads due to reweaves, patches or other alterations, then the threads would not be affected by any of the cleaning methods you describe.

And what McCrone found were precipitates, not pigments. Other researchers found no pigments on the shroud, and the image is sepia colored.

 

[pgwenthold]

I have offered evidence that the reaction could occur at room temperature, and that the conditions of the man in the shroud was higher than that.

What would be the rate of reaction at these temperatures?

If you knew anything about chemistry (your failed attempt to calculate the amount of contamination needed does call that into question) you would know that the question is not "can the reaction happen" but how fast it does it happen.

For something like a Maillard reaction, I'm sure that there is a pretty detailed kinetics profile that has been measured (I always tell my students, food scientists really know their ◊◊◊◊) so the full set of Arrhenius is probably known. We probably need to do some estimates of the composition.

But just to get an idea of whether it's reasonable, we ask the question - if I set a piece of bread at whatever temp you think is right and leave it there for 36 hours, will it toast? As I said above, it will certainly dry out, but that's not a Maillard reaction.

 

[bobdroege7]

And, while we're on the subject of the herringbone weave, @bobdroege7 were are the examples of such a weave from first century Judea?
And I note you have failed to support your assertion of two previous radiocarbon datings of the alleged shroud with citations. So @bobdroege7 when will you be doing so?

You don't read my citations, so why should I bother.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Go back to school and ask for a refund, or you might have an issue with your h key. Get your where, were, wear, and we're right.