• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

I just don't get it.

1, The three carbon 14 results agree that the Shroud of Turin is less than half the age it should be if it was from the time of Christ.

2, Two of the results agree to the level of one standard deviation. The third agrees within two standard deviations.

3, How in the name of Jesus does the fact that one of the results is two rather than one standard deviation out mean that the results are so out of kilter that all three of the results can be thrown out and we can ignore point one completely?

4, This "homogeneity" statistical test reads to me like GIGO and not appropriate.

5, Then there is that letter and now we have Oresme.
 
Pacal said:
I just don't get it.

1, The three carbon 14 results agree that the Shroud of Turin is less than half the age it should be if it was from the time of Christ.

2, Two of the results agree to the level of one standard deviation. The third agrees within two standard deviations.

3, How in the name of Jesus does the fact that one of the results is two rather than one standard deviation out mean that the results are so out of kilter that all three of the results can be thrown out and we can ignore point one completely?

4, This "homogeneity" statistical test reads to me like GIGO and not appropriate.

5, Then there is that letter and now we have Oresme.
Click to expand...
Because to shroudies the cloth is really genuinely real. Therefore everything that proves it's a medieval fake must be wrong, somehow.

Magic contamination, invisible patches, archiepiscopal misconduct, KGB plots, hacking, assassination, forgery, a truly staggering lack of understanding of statistics......, whatever it takes.
 
Pacal said:
2, Two of the results agree to the level of one standard deviation. The third agrees within two standard deviations.

3, How in the name of Jesus does the fact that one of the results is two rather than one standard deviation out mean that the results are so out of kilter that all three of the results can be thrown out and we can ignore point one completely?
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. The argument is that the 1σ CI result is a smoking gun that immediately calls into question the validity of the entire study. That is not how radiocarbon dating specialists interpret such a result. The presence of possible outliers is never a categorical indicator that the entire outcome is per se unreliable. The smoking-gun argument comes from people with no qualification or experience in radiocarbon dating and is purely a statistics formalism being misapplied.

Pacal said:
4, This "homogeneity" statistical test reads to me like GIGO and not appropriate.
Click to expand...
A homogeneity test is appropriate. The Ward & Wilson test was the prevailing method at the time, although newer and better methods are now available and confirm the overall stability of the Damon findings. The problem has never been a dispute over what statistic was produced by the test or whether the test was appropriate in a study such as this. The problem—the "garbage" if you will—is the authenticists' desire to interpret the statistic as necessarily requiring a certain conclusion that isn't supported by the standards of radiocarbon dating.
 
Last edited:
I don't follow this thread, but one of the Discovery channels had Josh Gates discussing the shroud today while I was doing something else. I wasn't paying attention but did hear him say the C-14 tests were "contaminated", or something. That's pretty much proof to me that the tests were valid!
 
As @bobdroege7 has decided to attempt another Fringe Reset and repetitively seagull the same old nonsense I think it's time to recapitulate the evidence that the Lirey cloth is a medieval creation.
The evidence is substantial, more important is their consilience.

1. Historical:​

  • The most important element under this heading is the utter lack of plausible evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century.
  • Secondary to that is it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds).
  • Thirdly there is lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any contemporaneous early Christian writings
  • Finally there is the distinct changes in the cloth, the fading of colour, fraying and other wear-and-tear since its first exposure. This strongly suggests the shroud only came into existence in the medieval period, rather than the first century.

2. Physiological:​

  • The overarching point there, one we have discussed in this thread (and prior threads) is the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body.
  • Likewise the positioning of the body with hands folded across the genitals which generally isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough), at least for the vast majority of humanity.

3. Textile:​

  • The weave pattern of the shroud, the 'herringbone' weave does not match anything known from the first century Mid East. It is a typical product of a loom that didn't exist at that time.
  • However the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well and there are numerous examples of such cloth.

4. Testimony:​

  • The much discussed d'Arcis Memorandum indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake within a few decades.
  • More recently the examination of the writings of the medieval cleric and philosopher Nicole Oresme shows that he was aware of the use of the false shroud to extract donations.

5. Artistic:​

  • The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
  • The unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period. Likewise the stylised coverage of the genitals.

6. Reproducibility:​

  • Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using methods and materials available around 1300.

7. Analytic:​

  • Microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
  • Chemical testing shows the same.
  • Radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories, showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:​

  • The shroud simply does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices.
  • Nor does the alleged shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths.
  • Neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
  • The supposed historical and cultural background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355.

9. Serological:​

  • A minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue on the Lirey cloth.


Radiocarbon results 4 - now in colour! Resized 600x300.png
 
catsmate said:
As @bobdroege7 has decided to attempt another Fringe Reset and repetitively seagull the same old nonsense I think it's time to recapitulate the evidence that the Lirey cloth is a medieval creation.
The evidence is substantial, more important is their consilience.

1. Historical:​

  • The most important element under this heading is the utter lack of plausible evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century.
  • Secondary to that is it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds).
  • Thirdly there is lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any contemporaneous early Christian writings
  • Finally there is the distinct changes in the cloth, the fading of colour, fraying and other wear-and-tear since its first exposure. This strongly suggests the shroud only came into existence in the medieval period, rather than the first century.

2. Physiological:​

  • The overarching point there, one we have discussed in this thread (and prior threads) is the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body.
  • Likewise the positioning of the body with hands folded across the genitals which generally isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough), at least for the vast majority of humanity.

3. Textile:​

  • The weave pattern of the shroud, the 'herringbone' weave does not match anything known from the first century Mid East. It is a typical product of a loom that didn't exist at that time.
  • However the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well and there are numerous examples of such cloth.

4. Testimony:​

  • The much discussed d'Arcis Memorandum indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was known to be a fake within a few decades.
  • More recently the examination of the writings of the medieval cleric and philosopher Nicole Oresme shows that he was aware of the use of the false shroud to extract donations.

5. Artistic:​

  • The face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
  • The unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period. Likewise the stylised coverage of the genitals.

6. Reproducibility:​

  • Contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using methods and materials available around 1300.

7. Analytic:​

  • Microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
  • Chemical testing shows the same.
  • Radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories, showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)

8. Cultural:​

  • The shroud simply does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices.
  • Nor does the alleged shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths.
  • Neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
  • The supposed historical and cultural background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355.

9. Serological:​

  • A minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue on the Lirey cloth.


View attachment 66211
Click to expand...
Quite the Gish gallup you got there Cat, all debunked of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom