• 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?"

Gulliver Foyle said:
Remember you're talking to a man who first claimed because it agreed with the qu'ran's claim that Jesus was replaced by abody double on the cross, that made the shroud a real artifact.

B

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

JayUtah said:
And what is your evidence that that happened? Why would he want to do that?
Click to expand...

Because it shows that the man in the shroud survived the crucifixion, see the Quran, which means that Christ did not die for our sins, and what follows from that is that Christianity a total fraud.

An archbishop would possibly want to avoid that if at all possible.

Were there any other questions?
Click to expand...
The part of the Koran I referenced does not say Jesus was replaced by a double, sorry.
 
catsmate said:
Now @bobdroege7, since you've graced the thread with your presence:
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? Where, when and by whom was it carried out?
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 textile 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 on the purported image in the Pray Codex? Where and when did it occur?
Click to expand...
1. The part where Thomas says he is looking at his own image in the shroud, read the whole thing, you might be able to find it. The name of the disciple Thomas Didymus can be translated to twin twin. Whose twin do you think he is?

2. Do you know what secret means?

3. Supposedly it was two threads.

4. Not actually necessary, but then did you not provide that for yourself already?

5. It's documented on the shroud itself, the burn holes pictured on the Pray Codex are actually on the shroud.
 
Darat said:
That can't be the case,

bobdroege7 said:



Now this isn't a claim that relies on complicated statistics, unknown nuclear physics or anything difficult; all they need to do is to give us book, chapter and verse, I am sure many of us will even have a copy of a Bible in our homes to check against (or can use the many online versions). It really should have been a claim that was substantiated with a single line of text.

Of course if it turns out the Bible doesn't in fact tell us what happened to the real one all it would take is a quick "Sorry I was wrong" and the claim can be dropped.
Click to expand...
I'll drop the claim that it was in the bible, because it was not from the bible but from another ancient text.

en.wikipedia.org

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Seeing as there are only two books that deal with any aspect of Jesus' infancy (Matthew and Luke) it really shouldn't be that hard. Unless of course the verse in question doesn't exist...
Click to expand...
There are books that didn't make it into the bible, that discuss the holy foreskin and the nard it was put in.
 
Pacal said:
"Must be homogenous" - really? You don't know much about carbon 14 tests it seems. There is no "must". Also the results in all three case3s still show the shroud to be less than 1/2 the age it should be if it was from the time of Jesus. The outlier result is within two standard deviations from the other two results which are within one standard deviation. I just utterly fail to see that as a reason to throw out all three results.
Click to expand...
I assume this is an AI sentence

I googled this "do radiocarbon samples need to be homogeneous"

"Yes, radiocarbon samples need to be homogeneous. Homogeneity is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and precision of radiocarbon dating results. This is because the radiocarbon content of a sample must be consistent across all parts to accurately determine the age of the sample. Inadequate homogeneity can lead to inaccurate dating results and misinterpretation of the data. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that radiocarbon samples are homogeneous before conducting any dating analysis.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=78e5...cnkvZ3VpZGUtcmFkaW9jYXJib24tc2FtcGxpbmc&ntb=1
Pennsylvania State University"

You don't need to throw them out, you just can't average them because they are not the same.
 
bobdroege7 said:
1. The part where Thomas says he is looking at his own image in the shroud, read the whole thing, you might be able to find it. The name of the disciple Thomas Didymus can be translated to twin twin. Whose twin do you think he is?
Click to expand...
Oh good grief...
bobdroege7 said:
2. Do you know what secret means?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. You seem to treat it as an excuse to avoid answering awkward questions.
bobdroege7 said:
3. Supposedly it was two threads.
Click to expand...
And their mass? Compared to the actual AMS testing.

It's fascinating how you hold real scientists to such a high standard, and abandon any attempt at scrutiny of your soooper-sekrit test.
bobdroege7 said:
4. Not actually necessary, but then did you not provide that for yourself already?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. There are no examplars of such a weave, for obvious reasons, for centuries after the period when you claim the cloth was created.

I take it you are rescinding your previous claims that such cloths have been shown to exist in the first century ME.
bobdroege7 said:
5. It's documented on the shroud itself, the burn holes pictured on the Pray Codex are actually on the shroud.
Click to expand...
No. Just no. The burns on the Lirey cloth happened much later, long after the Codex was created. Unless you're going to claim it was precognitive?
 
bobdroege7 said:
I assume this is an AI sentence

I googled this "do radiocarbon samples need to be homogeneous"

"Yes, radiocarbon samples need to be homogeneous. Homogeneity is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and precision of radiocarbon dating results. This is because the radiocarbon content of a sample must be consistent across all parts to accurately determine the age of the sample. Inadequate homogeneity can lead to inaccurate dating results and misinterpretation of the data. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that radiocarbon samples are homogeneous before conducting any dating analysis.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=78e5...cnkvZ3VpZGUtcmFkaW9jYXJib24tc2FtcGxpbmc&ntb=1
Pennsylvania State University"

You don't need to throw them out, you just can't average them because they are not the same.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief, this is beyond pathetic, into stupidity.
 
bobdroege7 said:
1. The part where Thomas says he is looking at his own image in the shroud, read the whole thing, you might be able to find it. The name of the disciple Thomas Didymus can be translated to twin twin. Whose twin do you think he is?

2.
Do you know what secret means?
...snip...
Click to expand...
So how do you know about it......
 
bobdroege7 said:
I'll drop the claim that it was in the bible, because it was not from the bible but from another ancient text.

en.wikipedia.org

Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
So not a canonical text of any of the major Christian religions. And you do know that gives more provenance to the claim of his foreskin being a relic than the shroud has? Why should we consider the claims of the foreskin false?
 
Darat said:
So how do you know about it......
Click to expand...
Ah, because it's in a book. So not so secret really......

A very dubious book, by Thomas Case (a shroudies of course) which tries to handwave the radiocarbon dating with the usual bollocks about invisible patching, called The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco. Published 1996.

About half the book is an interview with John Heller, and Case claims that Heller told him that he (Heller) had arranged for a secret radiocarbon test to be performed on the alleged shroud:
What brings much greater doubt into the picture is a radiocarbon test performed at the University of California in 1982. Dr. Heller sent a sample from the Shroud to the nuclear accelerator lab there. It was a single thread. One end tested to 200 A.D., the other to 1000 A.D., or, according to Dr. Adler, 1200 A.D.
Click to expand...

My personal belief, from certain prior dealings with Case, is that it's an outright fabrication on his part. He has never supplied any evidence, witness, recording, et cetera, that Heller said anything of the sort. Notably the book was published after Heller was dead.

The story falls apart on even a cursory inspection, the availability of an AMS lab, willingness to carry out such a test, sample mass et cetera.

Notably @bobdroege7 unquestioningly accepts this supposed test, while demanding that the real tests are subject to intense and pointless scrutiny.
 
I'll drop the claim that it's me on the Shroud because I never said it was.
And thats canonical.
 
catsmate said:
And your evidence that they are true, correct and contemporaneous?
Click to expand...
They are as true, correct, and contemporaneous as any of the books in the real bible.

Which is a rather low bar.

You know how the Church decided which books went into the bible?

And what they did to dissenters?
 
catsmate said:
No. Just no. The burns on the Lirey cloth happened much later, long after the Codex was created. Unless you're going to claim it was precognitive?
Click to expand...

Those burns are the triangular ones produced by the molten silver, not the L shaped pattern of 4 holes in the shroud.

You have no evidence of when those were produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom