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

[zooterkin]

The fact of the matter is that most of the scientists who have studied the Shroud have concluded it is not a manmade fabrication but is the authentic image of a crucified man.

If you're going to lead off with an untruth like that, it's safe to ignore the rest of your post, unless you have a wildly different definition of scientist from me.

 

[catsmate]

Uh-huh. They have "addressed" my posts by issuing summary denials, by claiming that all the scientists/experts who reject their attacks on the Shroud are religious zealots who can't be trusted, and by citing (usually with no links) a handful of scholars whose arguments have been thoroughly answered by a far greater number of scholars.

A stream of childish lies.

When you guys can't even bring yourselves to admit that the Shroud's image is a negative image, that shows you are hopelessly biased and have only read one side of the story.

Again, utter rubbish.

 

[JayUtah]

I read your reply and thought it was evasive, superficial, and really downright ridiculous. Your argument boils down to saying that all the experts who appear in the documentary are wrong and that you know better than they do. I don't think so. And what exactly are your qualifications compared to those of the experts in the documentary?

My argument was that the people in the documentary didn't make the claims about themselves that you made about them. They didn't claim to be "computer scientists," as you claimed. They didn't claim to be testing the hypothesis that 3D information could be reliably extracted from the shroud images. You misrepresented your source. If you are unable to address the content of my review, just say so.

As for Ford, are you going to address the points he makes in his article? I know he graduated with a master's degree from the University of Maryland in history and philosophy, and I know he was listed as vice president of the University of Maryland's (UMBC) chess club.

You claimed he was a professor at that university. What is your evidence in support of that claim?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

As for Ford, are you going to address the points he makes in his article? I know he graduated with a master's degree from the University of Maryland in history and philosophy, and I know he was listed as vice president of the University of Maryland's (UMBC) chess club. So, the man is clearly educated. And, if you read his article, you'll learn that he consulted with Dr. Alan Adler.

I have an M.A., too, and was also once vice president of a school chess club. Can I be a Shroud expert?

 

[catsmate]

I read your reply and thought it was evasive, superficial, and really downright ridiculous. Your argument boils down to saying that all the experts who appear in the documentary are wrong and that you know better than they do. I don't think so. And what exactly are your qualifications compared to those of the experts in the documentary?

The hypocrisy, it burns....

As for Ford, are you going to address the points he makes in his article?

Already done.

I know he graduated with a master's degree from the University of Maryland in history and philosophy,

As you should know, this isn't true.

Oh, but that's right: You guys say Adler was unqualified to talk about blood stains on the Shroud.

Actually we've repeatedly shown why his claims were nonsense.You refuse to accept these facts.

Yeah, never mind that he was a professor of chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and at Western Connecticut University, that he was a senior staff scientist at the New England Institute, that he specialized in porphyrins and blood chemistry, that he was a long-time member of the American Chemical Society, and that he published hundreds of articles on chemistry and biochemistry, particularly about the chemistry of porphyrins, describing their synthetic, analytical, chemical-physical, and biological aspects.

Irrelevant. We've shown why his methodology and samples were problematic.

 

[catsmate]

I have an MA, too, and was also once vice president of a school chess club. Can I be a Shroud expert?

I can get one for free by Incepting......

 

[Thermal]

I have an M.A., too, and was also once vice president of a school chess club. Can I be a Shroud expert?

Is Bobby Fischer the final Shroud authority then? As long as he can philosophize about it, I guess.

Eta: I'm still concerned about Jesus' nose being white (if it's a negative rendition). Did he have some of that zinc sunblock on it like the lifeguards put on at the beach? I mean I guess it makes sense if you are going to be out in the sun for hours being crucified and all.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We still see some skeptics claiming that NASA had "nothing to do with" the VP-8 Image Analyzer, that it was just used to analyze x-rays, and that there was no connection between Shroud research and NASA. However, in point of fact, NASA did use the VP-8, and two members of the STURP team were scientists who were involved with the space program (LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK).

The VP-8 was an analog computer engineered by Pete Schumacher of Interpretations Systems Incorporated in 1972.

When the VP-8 was used with photographs or paintings, it produced a distorted representation of the original image--naturally enough, since such sources contain no 3D information. However, when the VP-8 was used to analyze the Shroud image, it produced an accurate 3D representation of the man seen in the Shroud, with facial features, arms, legs, and chest all contoured correctly. When Schumacher was shown the image that the VP-8 produced from the Shroud, he was amazed:

"I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results are unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study." (Ian Wilson, The Shroud: The 2,000-Year-Old Mystery Solved, Bantam Books, 2010, p. 22)

For an in-depth discussion on the fact that the Shroud's image contains 3D information, see John Jackson, Eric Jumper, and William Ercoline's paper "Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-Dstructure of a Human Body Shape," published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (LINK).

 

[Reformed Offlian]

(To the tune of "William Tell Overture")
Gallop Gish Gallop Gish Gallop Gish Gish Gish!

 

[JayUtah]

The VP-8 was...

We have discussed the VP-8 at length. It does not produce the effect the shroud enthusiasts claim. It does not even purport to produce that effect.

However, when the VP-8 was used to analyze the Shroud image, it produced an accurate 3D representation of the man seen in the Shroud, with facial features, arms, legs, and chest all contoured correctly.

Asked and answered—no it didn't. The 3D contours emerged only after "adjustments" were made to the product, and were ever only locally faithful to the hypothesis. As noted in the shroud enthusiasts' own scholarship, these adjustments were made under the assumption that they should eventually result in a conformal 3D data set.

For an in-depth discussion...

I'm quite willing and able to have an in-depth discussion about the alleged 3D geometry reconstructions. And I have already contributed a fair amount to that discussion here. You are apparently unwilling or unable to engage in it, so I don't see the point of going any further. Your simple throwing out of links to things you don't understand won't cut it.

 

[catsmate]

We still see some skeptics claiming that NASA had "nothing to do with" the VP-8 Image Analyzer, that it was just used to analyze x-rays, and that there was no connection between Shroud research and NASA.

Indeed, because these facts are true.

<Snip>

We've debunked your VP-8 nonsense previously

For an in-depth discussion on the fact that the Shroud's image contains 3D information, see John Jackson, Eric Jumper, and William Ercoline's paper "Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-Dstructure of a Human Body Shape," published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (LINK).

Sigh, this has also been covered.

 

[JayUtah]

John Jackson, Eric Jumper, and William Ercoline's paper "Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-Dstructure of a Human Body Shape," published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (LINK).

This paper simply restates the same claims and arguments as was in the IEEE Proceedings paper that I already reviewed.

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed, because these facts are true.

Indeed, there is no controversy over the many legitimate uses of the VP-8. Yes, it was used to visualize image density in x-rays. But the density of a bone as understood by projecting x-rays through it has nothing to do producing a 3D representation of the bone itself. The peaks and valleys in the 3D visualization are false-height representations of image density, not at attempt to describe the geometry of the x-rayed object. Yes, NASA used the VP-8 to analyze aerial and satellite photography. They were not trying to recover or recreate 3D topographic information. They were using it to precisely identify points on the ground that exhibited desired image-density properties. Here, as in the x-ray use case, image density is a proxy for another property that they were interested in. The shroud authors do the same: they consider image density as a proxy for some hypothetical inverse-square-law intensity behavior that they do not attempt to characterize. The notion that this should correspond to actual 3D geometry is pure invention, likely a pareidolic leap from looking at the height map. The rest of the study is simply a fishing expedition to come up with whatever ad hoc transformations give them what they want. It's pure HARKing. They get away with it in legitimate science because they state their assumptions up front. What they're doing is reasonable under their assumptions, but those are some pretty heavy-lifting assumptions. It works in authenticist rhetoric because the visually astonishing outcome of all this ad hoc fiddling seems to suggest the assumptions should be taken as true without further examination.

The mention of the legitimate uses of the VP-8 is probably meant to establish the device as the legitimate tool it is, but also to divert attention away from their illegitimate use. Just because important, smart people know how to use the machine correctly doesn't mean others using it incorrectly have risen to the same rigor.

 

[bobdroege7]

The "heterogeneity of the shroud samples" is an assumption not in anyway a fact.

Lets see all three results show that the shroud is less than 1/2 the age it should be if it was from the time of Jesus.

The fact that one of the results is moderately out of sinc with the other two, (Within two not one standard deviations), is not in anyway show that the the results can be dismissed. They are in fact supportive of the extremely high probability that the shroud is from the High Middle Ages.

Supposedly anomalous results from Carbon 14 tests are not rare and in this case the "anomaly" isn't much.

As for the "failure" of the chi^2 test. Since all three of the results date the shroud to less than 1/2 half the date it should be if it was from the time of Jesus and also that the results still all overlap within 2 standard deviations then all this alleged test indicates is a mild "distortion" brought on by who knows what at the very most. And of course it could also mean that this test is actually not very meaningful.

The chi^2 test indicates that there is a mixture of threads of different ages, which means the dating is invalid. That's what the test does, it determines if samples are of the same class or not, in the case of the Shroud, it shows there are more than one class of object being tested.

I did similar testing in the pharmaceutical industry, but instead of measuring the time or age of the sample, I was measuring the half-life of radioactive material.

Raw irradiated target water comes out as a mixture of isotopes, so we have to eliminate the very short lived ones, before the test, and then measure the long lived ones after the test, so we can measure the half-life of the one we are using.

The same thing needs to be done when carbon dating something, you have to be sure you are only testing one thing, if it's a mixture, you are screwed.

"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples."

From

Radiocarbon dating considerations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's not about the overlap to two standard deviations, it's whether the curve is gaussian or not.

You can't get valid results if you are testing materials of two different ages, which is evident if you look at pictures of the samples sent to the labs, the mixture of thin and thick threads in the sample are proof that the area samples was repaired, patched, or rewoven sometime after the shroud appeared in Europe in the middle ages.

All y"all don't know about the chi^2 test, here maybe read up on it.

Chi-squared test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[catsmate]

The chi^2 test indicates that there is a mixture of threads of different ages, which means the dating is invalid.

No. Despite your repetitive repeating of this assertion it's simply not true, as has been pointed out to you several times.

That's what the test does, it determines if samples are of the same class or not, in the case of the Shroud, it shows there are more than one class of object being tested.

Untrue.

"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples."

Ah yes, the magic contamination. Except there wasn't any such excuse for ignoring reality in favour of your pet theories.

All y"all don't know about the chi^2 test, here maybe read up on it.

Sigh. As has been patiently explained to you, this nonsense simply isn't true.

Now @bobdroege7, seeing as you've returned from your last flounce how, about addressing some of your previous claims.
1. Do you accept that your claim of a secret radiocarbon dating (or two) is untrue? If not, please present your evidence for this assertion.
2. Will you be providing evidence for your claim that herringbone weave cloth was in use in first century Palestine?
3. Will you be showing how your claimed room temperature Maillard can occur?

 

[JayUtah]

I did similar testing in the pharmaceutical industry, but instead of measuring the time or age of the sample, I was measuring the half-life of radioactive material.

Unless you were doing radiocarbon dating, you were not performing the same test.

All y"all don't know about the chi^2 test, here maybe read up on it.

Chi-squared test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The chi-squared test as used in radiocarbon dating is not identical to the general statistical chi-squared test. They both use the chi-squared distribution, which is not the same thing.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A stream of childish lies. Again, utter rubbish.

As you are fond of saying about all scientific evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, bollocks! You are one of the worst offenders for issuing summary dismissals and peddling erroneous information in this thread.

A good source of information for answering critics is Joseph Marino's Mending the Shroud: Responses to Doubts About Authenticity -- an English-Language Bibliography, which provides links to all of the cited sources.

Marino is a former Benedictine monk who has been studying the Shroud for decades. He and his wife Sue Benford, a nurse, uncovered major problems with the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud. Their research convinced Dr. Ray Rogers that the 1988 carbon dating was invalid. Rogers initially thought Marino and Benford were "the lunatic fringe," and he only investigated their research because he was certain he could disprove it. But, when he reviewed their research and examined the samples, he changed his mind.

John L. Brown, a physicist and a former principal research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, confirmed Dr. Rogers' findings through a different form of testing (LINK). Brown worked at the Georgia Tech Research Institute from 1950 to 1995. He pioneered research techniques in electron microscopy and devised a new method of observing atomic lattice planes. He presented a paper on this topic at England's Cambridge University in 1967. Brown was active in scientific organizations concerned with microscopy, metallurgy, and other areas of physics. He was a fellow of the Royal Microscopical Society and a member of the Electron Microscopy Society of America. He was also a chairman of the Southeastern Electron Microscope Society. After he retired, he became a sought-after forensic consultant in material failure analysis. Here's an excerpt from his article on his findings:

The author, as a microscopist, has had an opportunity to examine some of the Raes threads. Figure 1shows a weft thread, R7, at an original magnification of 28X.The thread has a yellow-brown coating with the exception of indented regions which are white. These indented regions are at the intersection with the warp thread. The weave was tight enough that the application of a relatively viscous gum/mordant/dye solution did not penetrate the intersection of the threads. This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud. Figure 2shows the same thread at 56X magnification. The coating and encrustations can be seen on individual fibers.

 

[JayUtah]

As you are fond of saying about all scientific evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, bollocks! You are one of the worst offenders for issuing summary dismissals and peddling erroneous information in this thread.

You keep bringing up stuff that has already been covered many times in this thread by others.

Marino is a former Benedictine monk...

John L. Brown, a physicist and a former principal research scientist...

Yes, yes.

You told us Ray Downing was a "computer scientist," but he's actually an artist. You told us David Rolfe was an atheist who was converted, but he's been a lifelong shroud enthusiast. Your fetish for embellished qualifications is growing thin.

Is David Ford a professor at the University of Maryland, as you claimed?

 

[pgwenthold]

Is David Ford a professor at the University of Maryland, as you claimed?

Well he was a Masters student and the President of the Chess Club! What else do you need?

Then again, I am an actuall professor at my university, and, moreover, I am the faculty adviser of the Tea Appreciation Club, so I got that going for me.

For the record, I don't drink tea.

 

[bobdroege7]

No. Despite your repetitive repeating of this assertion it's simply not true, as has been pointed out to you several times.
View attachment 61292









Untrue.

Ah yes, the magic contamination. Except there wasn't any such excuse for ignoring reality in favour of your pet theories.

Sigh. As has been patiently explained to you, this nonsense simply isn't true.

Now @bobdroege7, seeing as you've returned from your last flounce how, about addressing some of your previous claims.
1. Do you accept that your claim of a secret radiocarbon dating (or two) is untrue? If not, please present your evidence for this assertion.
2. Will you be providing evidence for your claim that herringbone weave cloth was in use in first century Palestine?
3. Will you be showing how your claimed room temperature Maillard can occur?

The contamination is not magic, it's due to repairs, reweaves, or mending. You can continue to ignore the science if you wish, not my monkey.

Where did I flounce? You are imagining things.

And no, you have not patiently explained anything to me.

As reported in the Damon paper, the chi^2 fails, deal with it, do not ignore it.