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

JayUtah said:
Thank you. While it seems to be unappreciated by certain people, the chi-squared argument comes up often enough in this thread that it merits a thorough debunking.
Click to expand...

Good. I was starting to think you had a desperate need to make poor old bobdredge understand something.
 
catsmate said:
Now. anyone familiar with the basics of AMS carbon dating will notice this is complete bollocks. There was no UC AMS facility in 1982 for a start. And the reference to a single thread from the Raes sample is another dead giveaway. As an aside, this nonsense is one reason I suspect that Case rather than Heller fabricated (!) the story; Heller wouldn't have made the basic mistakes.
Click to expand...
You should not be so nasty when you are wrong.

"Workers at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, University of California, have used an 88-inch
cyclotron for carbon-14 dating, using positive ions."

 
JayUtah said:
No, that's just Casabianca's conspiracy-mongering.


No, that's not how it works. The potential age range must include 1262 because the calibration is unambiguous for that end of the interval. Because the calibration is ambiguous for the other numbers, the upper limit of the interval gets a reasonably hard cutoff at 1384 CE. Then the correct way to interpret what you're wrongly considering to be an excluded subinterval is that according to the probability distribution underlying the Stuiver and Pearson method, the upper limit of the calendar date interval is not likely to fall within the date rage 1312-1352 CE to 95% confidence. The absolutely wrong way to interpret would be that the lower limit of the calibrated calendar interval can be 1352 CE.

Honestly, you either need to grapple with the complicated reality of what you're trying to argue or admit that it's over your head and concede. Every post from you brings a new attempt to shoehorn what is rather messy and difficult science into your pidgin understanding of it, and every day you're just as confident as you were the day before that one of the most highly scrutinized examples of radiocarbon dating is "clearly" wrong on that new basis.

You're really falling all over yourself trying to make this your new slam-dunk. Yesterday the multiple intercept was irrefutable evidence that Sample 1 had multiple ages of fibers—a non sequitur of truly flabbergasting magnitude. Today the multiple intercept is irrefutable evidence that the radiocarbon dating was incompatible with dating by historiographical methods. Neither of these has the slightest grounding in reality. Imagine what desperate new mud-against-the-wall claim we'll be treated to tomorrow.
Click to expand...
First, I would have assumed that you understood I was excluding the 1353-1384 range rather than the 1262-1312 range.

If it is documented historically to have appeared in 1356, then yes the radiocarbon date is incompatible with dating by historiographical methods.

I'll thank you for referring me to

Summarizing a Set of Radiocarbon
Determinations: a Robust Approach
By J. ANDRtS CHRISTENt
University of Nottingham, UK

"The Shroud of Turin was first displayed in the 1350s AD (Damon et al., 1989);
the materials in the shroud should have died before that date and thus we state the
lower boundary of 600 BP for the distribution of 0."

and

"Of course we expect the shroud's manufacture and possibly its first exhibition to
have been soon after its organic materials died. Thus it seems likely that it was made
some time between 1300 and 1350 AD, just as concluded in Damon et al. (1989)"

Seems this paper agrees with excluding the 1352-1384 range.
 
In 2000, a group of scientists (physicists and engineers) conducted experiments using excimer laser irradiation in an attempt to determine how the image on the Shroud was produced. They concluded that the experiments indicated that a short and intense burst of ultraviolet radiation may have played role in creating the image. Six scientists were involved: Paolo Di Lazzaro, Giuseppe Baldacchini, Giulio Fanti, Daniele Murra, Enrico Nichelatti, and Antonino Santoni. At the time, five of them were working at the Department of Physical Technologies and New Materials at ENEA's Casaccia Research Center in Italy, while one of them was working in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Padua in Italy. All six scientists have remained advocates for authenticity. Here is the abstract for their paper:

The faint body image embedded into the Turin Shroud has not yet explained by science. We present experimental results of excimer laser irradiation (wavelengths 308 nm and 193 nm) of a raw linen fabric and of a linen cloth, seeking for a possible mechanism of image formation. We achieved a permanent coloration of both linens as a threshold effect of the laser beam intensity. The coloration is obtained in a surprisingly narrow range of irradiation parameters: the shorter the laser wavelength, the narrower the range. We also obtained the first direct evidence of latent coloration impressed on linen that appears in a relatively long period (one year) after a laser irradiation that at first did not generate an evident coloration. The comparison of the results of our excimer laser irradiation with the characteristics of the Turin Shroud image suggests we cannot exclude the possibility that a short and intense burst of ultraviolet radiation may have played a role in the formation of the Shroud image. (https://www.academia.edu/18343094/A...o_the_Turin_Shroud?email_work_card=view-paper)
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
How can you be sure the omnipotent deity resurrection process does not create bursts of high intensity UV, or the spontaneous creation and destruction of rainbow farting unicorns for that matter? Checkmate, atheist! :p
Click to expand...

God works in ultra mysterious ways, His farts to colorize, amen.
 
bobdroege7 said:
That's what I did, and I cited a paper.
Click to expand...
Yeah.......
Random Google searches aren't actually useful, except (perhaps) as a starting point for actual research. This latter you seem very reluctant to do.
The paper you linked to is an experimental facility, a repurposed cyclotron (technically a synchro-cyclotron) that was not used for AMS research for long and wasn't available for the super-secret radiocarbon dating that you, parroting Case, claim happened.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
In 2000, a group of scientists (physicists and engineers) conducted experiments using excimer laser irradiation
Click to expand...
We've covered this. In fact you brought it up months ago. Are you incapable of keeping track of the nonsense you post?
It continues to be nonsense.

Oh and neither you nor any of the other shroudies have shown how the supposed corpse emitted coherent optical radiation.

mikegriffith1 said:
<snippage>
Click to expand...
The image on the Lirey cloth has been successfully duplicated. With pigment. Like the pigment on the cloth.

Fail.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
In 2000, a group of scientists (physicists and engineers) conducted experiments using excimer laser irradiation in an attempt to determine how the image on the Shroud was produced. They concluded that the experiments indicated that a short and intense burst of ultraviolet radiation may have played role in creating the image. Six scientists were involved: Paolo Di Lazzaro, Giuseppe Baldacchini, Giulio Fanti, Daniele Murra, Enrico Nichelatti, and Antonino Santoni. At the time, five of them were working at the Department of Physical Technologies and New Materials at ENEA's Casaccia Research Center in Italy, while one of them was working in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Padua in Italy. All six scientists have remained advocates for authenticity. Here is the abstract for their paper:

The faint body image embedded into the Turin Shroud has not yet explained by science. We present experimental results of excimer laser irradiation (wavelengths 308 nm and 193 nm) of a raw linen fabric and of a linen cloth, seeking for a possible mechanism of image formation. We achieved a permanent coloration of both linens as a threshold effect of the laser beam intensity. The coloration is obtained in a surprisingly narrow range of irradiation parameters: the shorter the laser wavelength, the narrower the range. We also obtained the first direct evidence of latent coloration impressed on linen that appears in a relatively long period (one year) after a laser irradiation that at first did not generate an evident coloration. The comparison of the results of our excimer laser irradiation with the characteristics of the Turin Shroud image suggests we cannot exclude the possibility that a short and intense burst of ultraviolet radiation may have played a role in the formation of the Shroud image. (https://www.academia.edu/18343094/A...o_the_Turin_Shroud?email_work_card=view-paper)
Click to expand...
"Seeking for a possible mechanism of image information" isn't the same thing as seeking a mechanism for this particular one. All these guys have done here is reverse-engineered a solution that takes no account of initial conditions and still requires a miracle since, as far as anyone knows, Jesus wasn't laser-equipped. You can trot out all the sciency-sounding guff you want, but you're still relying on a faith that god can do anything, man.
 
Last edited:
Guybrush Threepwood said:
How can you be sure the omnipotent deity resurrection process does not create bursts of high intensity UV, or the spontaneous creation and destruction of rainbow farting unicorns for that matter? Checkmate, atheist! :p
Click to expand...
Maybe the god neutrons caused the fabric to lase?
 
catsmate said:
Random Google searches aren't actually useful, except (perhaps) as a starting point for actual research. This latter you seem very reluctant to do.
The paper you linked to is an experimental facility, a repurposed cyclotron (technically a synchro-cyclotron) that was not used for AMS research for long and wasn't available for the super-secret radiocarbon dating that you, parroting Case, claim happened.
Click to expand...

Except I did not get there through a random google search, or any other google search.

And contrary to your claim that there was no AMS facility available in California at that time.

And I have been reading research papers since at least 1978, way before there was a google.

So, can you produce any evidence that the Lirey cloth was painted with a brush.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Except I did not get there through a random google search, or any other google search.
Click to expand...
Right......
bobdroege7 said:
And contrary to your claim that there was no AMS facility available in California at that time.
Click to expand...
My statement is correct. Perhaps you should contact UC?
bobdroege7 said:
And I have been reading research papers since at least 1978, way before there was a google.
Click to expand...
So? You don't seem to be very good at research. Or comprehension.

bobdroege7 said:
So, can you produce any evidence that the Lirey cloth was painted with a brush.
Click to expand...
Dealt with previously in this thread.
 
catsmate said:
Right......

My statement is correct. Perhaps you should contact UC?

So? You don't seem to be very good at research. Or comprehension.


Dealt with previously in this thread.
Click to expand...
Which UC?

This one?

KCCAMS – KCCAMS

sites.ps.uci.edu sites.ps.uci.edu

No brush strokes, the image is a different color than the pigments McCrone claimed to compose the image.

That's what is called a fringe reset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom