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

[bobdroege7]

What is this even supposed to mean?

You suddenly started spouting demonstrably nonsensical claims about the Codex and how it proved the Lirey Cloth existed far before the radiocarbon dating.
I exposed this as a farrago of rubbish.



Now are you going to show us evidence of your magically invisible repairs to the cloth? Show us the photographs that show repairs on the sampled area?

Oh, and have you learned the difference between 'accuracy' and 'precision' while you were away? Perhaps brushed up on basic statistics.....
Or are we going to get more gibberrings about χ2 tests?
Not forgetting:
1. What exactly in the "Hymn of the Pearl" shows the existence of a shroud?
2. Have you asked the University of California about your claimed secret radiocarbon test?
3. Will you be addressing the size of the sample of the supposed shroud available for that secret radiocarbon test?
4. Will you be showing us evidence that cloth of a pattern similar to that of the Lirey cloth existed in the first century?
5. And what about the undocumented fire that caused the damage to the cloth that you claim appears in the Pray Codex?

And I note, with no surprise, that @bobdroege7 hasn't mentioned the Oresme Manuscript or Sarzeaud's paper about it, which are probably the most exciting happenings in the world of shroudism for years. As well as being actually interesting.

Exactly. It was pretty obvious that @bobdroege7 had just bing'd it and thought the Codex was the Smoking Gnu.

It means I never made any argument about the position of the hands on the Pray Codex, but you apparently dreamed one up.

And another one, I never argued that the repairs were invisible, that was your straw man, others may have made that argument but not me.

Do you know the difference between accuracy and precision. There is the obvious one explained by the target and arrows analogy. But then in freshmen college chemistry we were taught that accuracy was unknown but precision can be measured.

I'll skip three and four, I have already answered those two, anyway do you know what secret means?

The four holes on the Pray Codex match the four holes in the shroud, you don't need anymore documentation to show the shroud was around before the 13th century.

 

[catsmate]

Says the cheap shot artist himself, "you don't know anything about statistics"

Finally admitting the chi^2 test does show lack of homogeneity, which is most important with respect to carbon dating.

So you don't know anything about statistics or carbon dating.

That's it? The sum of your response to the points made is this pathetic nonsense?

 

[Darat]

!RESET!

 

[bobdroege7]

I spent a great deal of time trying to teach you statistics. You didn’t learn anything.


According to whom?


No fringe reset for you.

Since you got the definition of statistics wrong from the gitgo, and after that refused to make any sense, I decided to learn from those who do know a little about statistics, like the two statisticians on Casabianca's team.

According to you dear chap.

Just because you can't understand my arguments and can only attack me and construct strawmen, doesn't mean my arguments are wrong.

Please be a dear chap and try to address my arguments.

What is an acceptable limit for the chi^2 test for the Damon et al measurements?

 

[The Norseman]

It means I never made any argument about the position of the hands on the Pray Codex, but you apparently dreamed one up.

And another one, I never argued that the repairs were invisible, that was your straw man, others may have made that argument but not me.

Do you know the difference between accuracy and precision. There is the obvious one explained by the target and arrows analogy. But then in freshmen college chemistry we were taught that accuracy was unknown but precision can be measured.

I'll skip three and four, I have already answered those two, anyway do you know what secret means?

The four holes on the Pray Codex match the four holes in the shroud, you don't need anymore documentation to show the shroud was around before the 13th century.

Hahahahahaha!

Oh! Oh! The holes... no, no wait... the four holes match the shroud so therefore it's legit, but the pictures... the figure.... the face of the supposed Christ Jesus HIMSELF doesn't align in any way whatsoever.... the whole friggin' point of the shroud in the first place it seems.... that doesn't matter.

Just ignore that part! Nope!

Hahahaha! Anyway, as I and many others have said over the years is that you and every shroudie on the planet have not and cannot ever produce any valid chain of custody from the day Jesus dies until it first shows up in the 13th century.

No one can because it isn't any burial shroud. It certainly has nothing to do with this (probably) mythical figure of Jesus.

The shroudies need to have documentation of: who exactly placed it on Jesus' body after his supposed crucifixion; who verified it was the same cloth after his body disappeared; where was it stored during the remainder of that first century; how long did that person keep it safe and to whom was it passed along and when and why; where is the documentation of who owned it, when, and for how long during the entirety of the second century; same for the third; same for the fourth; same for.... well, hopefully this gives a good start.

Just pony up those documents and then we can talk. Otherwise, it's all gaslighting, wishful thinking, fantasy.

 

[bobdroege7]

We even have several of Jesus's foreskins, so it seems astonishing that we don't have his loincloth.

Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.

 

[bobdroege7]

Hahahahahaha!

Oh! Oh! The holes... no, no wait... the four holes match the shroud so therefore it's legit, but the pictures... the figure.... the face of the supposed Christ Jesus HIMSELF doesn't align in any way whatsoever.... the whole friggin' point of the shroud in the first place it seems.... that doesn't matter.

Just ignore that part! Nope!

Hahahaha! Anyway, as I and many others have said over the years is that you and every shroudie on the planet have not and cannot ever produce any valid chain of custody from the day Jesus dies until it first shows up in the 13th century.

No one can because it isn't any burial shroud. It certainly has nothing to do with this (probably) mythical figure of Jesus.

The shroudies need to have documentation of: who exactly placed it on Jesus' body after his supposed crucifixion; who verified it was the same cloth after his body disappeared; where was it stored during the remainder of that first century; how long did that person keep it safe and to whom was it passed along and when and why; where is the documentation of who owned it, when, and for how long during the entirety of the second century; same for the third; same for the fourth; same for.... well, hopefully this gives a good start.

Just pony up those documents and then we can talk. Otherwise, it's all gaslighting, wishful thinking, fantasy.

You are a real charlatan,

What you desire does not exist.

But if you demand a chain of custody for the shroud, then the rest of us shroudies can demand a chain of custody for the shroud samples from the time they were cut from the cloth until they arrived at the radiocarbon test labs.

They were supposed to document the whole enchilada using video, but there is a gap, where nobody but Tite and the Archbishop had the samples and nobody was documenting that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[JayUtah]

Since you got the definition of statistics wrong from the gitgo...

Nope.

I decided to learn from those who do know a little about statistics, like the two statisticians on Casabianca's team.

Who know nothing about radiocarbon dating and how statistics applies to it. And Casabianca doesn't know anything about anything. And his axe-grinding is getting him kicked out of more and more polite circles.

I sent you to the people who invented the science and tried to help you understand what they were doing. You never went any farther than trying to jump-start the next day's attempt at a "gotcha!"

According to you dear chap.

Nope.

Just because you can't understand my arguments and can only attack me and construct strawmen, doesn't mean my arguments are wrong.

Haha! I tried to teach you statistics. When it went over your head, you retreated back to the, "Aw shucks, that dog don't hunt" level of lay denial.

Please be a dear chap and try to address my arguments.

No fringe reset for you.

What is an acceptable limit for the chi^2 test for the Damon et al measurements?

Asked and answered.

 

[bobdroege7]

For the attention of @bobdroege7, the new Big Thing in shroudism is the 'neutron activation' "hypothesis" (or 'neutron enrichment hypothesis'); you need to change bandwagons before this one also passes into oblivion.

It is true that neutrons activate things, ie, make them radioactive, but the flaw in that argument is that neutrons are penetrating, thus unable to discolor the linen only to a depth of 200 to 600 nanometers. Any bubblehead worth his midrats knows of the four cookie problem. I would not google that, because I just did, and got the wrong answer. Maybe Ranb could say.

 

[bobdroege7]

Nope.


Asked and answered.

Show me the post where you declared the limit for the chi^2 test, or else you are lying.

You made an effort to teach me statistics but you got some things wrong, so I don't trust your expertise.

And something you called the first rule of statistics, but then you have called several things the first rule of statistics, is not a rule of statistics but a property of the real numbers.

 

[JayUtah]

Show me the post where you declared the limit for the chi^2 test, or else you are lying.

I spent several weeks explaining how to interpret chi-square tests, both in general and in the context of radiocarbon dating. You aren't entitled to a do-over just because you want one.

 

[JayUtah]

You made an effort to teach me statistics but you got some things wrong...

According to whom?

And something you called the first rule of statistics, but then you have called several things the first rule of statistics, is not a rule of statistics but a property of the real numbers.

I have no idea what you're blabbering about.

 

[Darat]

Hahahahahaha!

Oh! Oh! The holes... no, no wait... the four holes match the shroud so therefore it's legit, but the pictures... the figure.... the face of the supposed Christ Jesus HIMSELF doesn't align in any way whatsoever.... the whole friggin' point of the shroud in the first place it seems.... that doesn't matter.

Just ignore that part! Nope!

Hahahaha! Anyway, as I and many others have said over the years is that you and every shroudie on the planet have not and cannot ever produce any valid chain of custody from the day Jesus dies until it first shows up in the 13th century.

No one can because it isn't any burial shroud. It certainly has nothing to do with this (probably) mythical figure of Jesus.

The shroudies need to have documentation of: who exactly placed it on Jesus' body after his supposed crucifixion; who verified it was the same cloth after his body disappeared; where was it stored during the remainder of that first century; how long did that person keep it safe and to whom was it passed along and when and why; where is the documentation of who owned it, when, and for how long during the entirety of the second century; same for the third; same for the fourth; same for.... well, hopefully this gives a good start.

Just pony up those documents and then we can talk. Otherwise, it's all gaslighting, wishful thinking, fantasy.

They also need to have an approximately 2000 year old piece of material... They have an approximately 700 year old piece of material.

 

[Darat]

Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.

I missed that passage can you quote it, thanks.

 

[catsmate]

Since you got the definition of statistics wrong from the gitgo, and after that refused to make any sense, I decided to learn from those who do know a little about statistics, like the two statisticians on Casabianca's team.

According to you dear chap.

Just because you can't understand my arguments and can only attack me and construct strawmen, doesn't mean my arguments are wrong.

Please be a dear chap and try to address my arguments.

What is an acceptable limit for the chi^2 test for the Damon et al measurements?

So your response to being shown to being both wrong in the specific and utterly incompetent at basic stats is personal abuse.
Pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

It means I never made any argument about the position of the hands on the Pray Codex, but you apparently dreamed one up.

You're trying to distract from your failures. My post made no reference to the position of the hands on that image, that was part of a digression into artistic styles.

And another one, I never argued that the repairs were invisible, that was your straw man, others may have made that argument but not me.

And yet you claimed that experts subjecting the Lirey cloth to microscopic examination couldn't see them.....

Do you know the difference between accuracy and precision.

Yes.

There is the obvious one explained by the target and arrows analogy. But then in freshmen college chemistry we were taught that accuracy was unknown but precision can be measured.

And what has this to do with the Lirey cloth? Or your incomprehension of basic stats.

I'll skip three and four, I have already answered those two, anyway do you know what secret means?

Right......
You're (again) refusing to explain how such a test could be conducted (hint: AMS facilities have a staff), the fact that the AMS system didn't exist where and when you claim the test occurred and how the sample that you claim (far less than was used in the real AMS tests in 1988) could have been sufficient.
Pathetic but unsurprising.

The four holes on the Pray Codex match the four holes in the shroud, you don't need anymore documentation to show the shroud was around before the 13th century.

No they don't. The pictures posted in this thread show this. Further the Codex pre-dates the known fire damage that caused the marks.

 

[catsmate]

Nope, those are fakes, the bible tells what happened to the real one.

Untrue. But unsurprising.

 

[catsmate]

It is true that neutrons activate things, ie, make them radioactive, but the flaw in that argument is that neutrons are penetrating, thus unable to discolor the linen only to a depth of 200 to 600 nanometers. Any bubblehead worth his midrats knows of the four cookie problem. I would not google that, because I just did, and got the wrong answer. Maybe Ranb could say.

Ah, so you're sticking to Classic Shroudism rather than jumping to the new version.
Also you might want to educate yourself on the variations in energy of neutrons and the subsequent variations in properties.

 

[catsmate]

And @bobdroege7 still won't touch Nicole Oresme.....

 

[Darat]

...snip...

No they don't. The pictures posted in this thread show this. Further the Codex pre-dates the known fire damage that caused the marks.

That's only if you limit yourself to linear, sequential time.