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

[Darat]

Either the Septuagint in Greek or the Vulgate in Latin.#

Eh? How does that answer the question I asked that you quoted?

 

[Thermal]

Yes I do have evidence those burn holes were produced before the shroud turned up in France.

The Pray Codex would not be evidence of that. That would be circular, or nuts, if you prefer. It is not established that the Pray Codex and the Turin Shroud depict the same specific cloth. That's what we are trying to establish, and its failing pretty miserably, starting with that annoying 'no image on the Pray Codex' thingy.

 

[turingtest]

Yes I do have evidence those burn holes were produced before the shroud turned up in France.

Ok, and that would be...? When I asked you before how you even knew that they were burn marks, your answer was that "[t]hey are likely to be burn marks on the Pray Codex, because they match the L-shaped pattern of burn marks on the shroud." Now there are only so many ways to explain circular reasoning, but I guess I'll try once more. The "match" between marks on the two different things is the evidence you're putting forth for the conclusion that they are, in fact, the same thing- putative burn marks on the one are the same as the established burn marks on the other. But in order to make the burn marks on the one more than just putative, you need evidence independent of the other. Can you really not see how circular it is to use the conclusion you're trying to reach- that they are the same thing- as evidence for a "match" you can only establish by means of assuming the conclusion that the "match" is meant to be evidence for? The evidence toward the conclusion cannot rely on the conclusion to be that evidence.

 

[sackett]

Earlier this morning, two quite young ladies knocked on my door.
I wasn't dressed to recieve them and called "Sorry!" through the glass.
Later, I found that they'd left a holy card. They were girl mormon missionaries!
I had never heard of such a thing! I wouldn't have guessed it possible! What a wonderful
opportunity to play Piety Poofball, and I missed it!

Poor young blonde windblown girlies. They missed out too.

This thread is a damn poor consolation, as I know you agree.

 

[Pacal]

This whole "homogeneity" issue strikes me as a red herring. I just don't get it. The three tests show that the Shroud of Turin 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 2 standard deviations off rather than one means the results do not have "homogeneity" and therefore all three results can be completely thrown out?! Huh!!

Does the lack of "homogeneity" mean the results can be thrown out or merely that one result is simply a little out of sync. Bluntly two standard deviations off rather than one standard deviation off isn't exactly a striking lack of "homogeneity".

 

[erwinl]

The image as seen on the shroud would be extremely difficult to draw on the Pray Codex, because it is difficult to draw on a 4 meter by 1 meter linen cloth.

Whingeing about the lack of an image on the Pray Codex is just that, whingeing. And no, I never mentioned that because it should be obvious that you don't get the evidence you want, just the evidence that exists.

Not even a simple image was possible?
That I find hard to believe.

But maybe that was also the reason the L pattern is turned 90 degrees in relation to the Turin shroud?
One would think that would be the easiest thing to get right. But it isn’t.

 

[arthwollipot]

Would you accept a claim that all these foreskins are fakes?

"Accept a claim"? I put it to you that there is no other reasonable conclusion. Just like all the pieces of the True Cross which if all put together would make a cross forty metres tall, or all of the teeth claiming to be from Saint Peter which show that the poor man must have had six full sets. They're all fake. Everything that the Catholic Church claims is a True Relic is a fake.

Every

Last

One

Including the Shroud.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There are books that didn't make it into the bible, that discuss the holy foreskin and the nard it was put in.

You said it was in the Bible. I see that you have since dropped that claim, so I won't press the point.

 

[catsmate]

Raes Ruminations

In 1973, a snippet of the Shroud was given to the Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes for analysis. It was described as shaped as an irregular right-angled triangle, with sides 40mm, 13mm and 42mm.…

medievalshroud.com

Maybe you should read more of Hugh's ruminations? Start with

12 Reasons to Disbelieve

In a book published last year, Michael J. Alter discusses the Resurrection, and concludes that “the current working position of this text is that Jesus had a dishonourable burial.” The …

medievalshroud.com

and then on to his rather detailed analyses. He was active here once, before be recovered from shroudism.

Here are some pictures of the Raes sample from the shroud, you can see what the front and the back look like, or maybe your glasses need and updated prescription.

I've seen them, and better. They in no way support your asinine assertions, or your childish attempts at abuse.
Grow up.

And perhaps address the rebuttal of your silly claims about invisible patches? Or of your secret radiocarbon test....

 

[catsmate]

I had some time to look over the next batch of presentation videos from SEEC (remember that?), which seems to be taking a long time to be posted publicly. There appears to be a lot of editing going on to make them fit for release.

TLDR, most of them are re-hashings of the same long, and repetitively, debunked nonsense. The "neutron activation" hypothesis (to use the term loosely) as pushed by Bob Rucker gets more coverage. There is a mildly interesting piece by Tom McAvoy attempting to link the UV photos taken by Vernon Miller (and the fluorescence thereof) to levels of neutron absorption.
Unfortunately for McAvoy a little study of his claims actually shows nothing of the kind, and the hypothesis also relies on the alleged corpse being laid in a very specific manner and the cloth also draped in a specific manner (one that doesn't match the supposed image either). Oh well.....

Joe Marino's presentation was disappointing, he seemed tired, and was basically the usual shroudie lies (or "misconceptions") rehashed.

Then there was the modesty titled ‘How to Solve the Greatest and Most Controversial Questions of Science and Humanity' presentation by (of course) Mark Antonacci. Who else......

Said question being how to calculate the age of the Lirey cloth. And no, "about 1300" isn't acceptable to him.

Antonacci attempts to smear the radiocarbon dating (of course) and demonstrated a truly amazing lack of understanding of, well, everything. Including really basic items like the number of tests performed.

Antonacci's work was fractally wrong in fact, making a string of quite basic errors of fact while also demonstrating a lower than @bobdroege7 understanding of stats, including how to calculate averages. There was also this gem:

You take the percent of the total, the 30%, and that tells you how old it is, and you take the 70%, and that tells you how long ago it happened.

He rambled off on a number of tangents, regarding Chlorine³⁶ and it's use in dating (I *think* he hoped to scrape the alleged blood off the cloth for dating), blood absorbing more neutrons than linen (not true) and the Holy Sepulchre, about which he stated

...the tomb has not been opened yet; the opening has been made but the tomb has not been opened.

which is not true either. I think Antonacci wants to date the calcium in the tomb but it's difficult to tell.

Next Antonacci repeats the old lie regarding Tristan Casabianca and his "Freedmon of Information", which our own @bobdroege7 has also parroted.

And finally there is this gem, regarding the area chosen for the radiopcarbon analysis:

It’s the worst area of all. STuRP knew every inch of the cloth, every centimetre of the cloth, and they would have never taken one [a sample] from there.

which is, as usual, untrue in every respect.
Antonacci also claimed that the sample area contained scorch marks and a water stain,; neither of these claims are true.

Antonacci's presentation didn't so much end as ramble off into incoherence.

I might do a third post if more of the missing presentations are released.

 

[JayUtah]

TLDR, most of them are re-hashings of the same long, and repetitively, debunked nonsense. The "neutron activation" hypothesis (to use the term loosely) as pushed by Bob Rucker gets more coverage.

For me that hypothesis is a non-starter. First it's too much of a coincidence for me that the cloth acquired exactly the right amount of neutrons to date it consistently to the period in which it first appears in the historical record. Second, the purported neutron sources are dodgy. If you want to propose that a supernatural event such as biblical resurrection produced all those neutrons, you've left any semblance of real science far in the dust behind you. If you want to propose a seismic or other natural event, you have to answer why there are no other examples of it in history. The practitioners of radiocarbon dating go to extreme lengths to discover and accommodate possible anomalous sources of ¹⁴C. If an earthquake is enough to throw off radiocarbon dating results, this would be of general interest and concern in the field.

Unfortunately for McAvoy a little study of his claims actually shows nothing of the kind, and the hypothesis also relies on the alleged corpse being laid in a very specific manner and the cloth also draped in a specific manner (one that doesn't match the supposed image either). Oh well.....

Indeed, if you have to propose that all these improbable and speculative events aligned perfectly in time and space to produce the cloth image only in the additionally coincidental case of Jesus of Nazareth, then why can't we propose similarly improbable activities on the part of the artist.

And finally there is this gem, regarding the area chosen for the radiopcarbon analysis:

Well, those are certainly words.

 

[sackett]

You guys' persistence, stamina, and determination leave me
quite exhausted. A glance at a photo of the picture on the everlasting
Shroud is enough to convince anybody that it's a laughable medieval
fake.

Well, not quite anybody. We tend to forget that reading an image
is an acquired skill, one that great numbers of simple folks can never
be expected to learn. Hence the pious muzhiks who paraded their Madonna
upside down because they had no understanding of what representation
means (sorry, can't supply a ref; came across it reading about late pre-
Soviet Russia). Or the Highland Papuans who were politely baffled by polaroids.
Or Lawrences's desert Bedouins who couldn't decode a charcoal portrait
of their own sheikh; one of them thought the figure's foot was a goat horn.

Or our own Jabba, who by god intended to believe and wasn't going to
be stopped by some pack of skeptics on a ninnernet form.

 

[catsmate]

You guys' persistence, stamina, and determination leave me
quite exhausted. A glance at a photo of the picture on the everlasting
Shroud is enough to convince anybody that it's a laughable medieval
fake.

Well, not quite anybody. We tend to forget that reading an image
is an acquired skill, one that great numbers of simple folks can never
be expected to learn. Hence the pious muzhiks who paraded their Madonna
upside down because they had no understanding of what representation
means (sorry, can't supply a ref; came across it reading about late pre-
Soviet Russia). Or the Highland Papuans who were politely baffled by polaroids.
Or Lawrences's desert Bedouins who couldn't decode a charcoal portrait
of their own sheikh; one of them thought the figure's foot was a goat horn.

Or our own Jabba, who by god intended to believe and wasn't going to
be stopped by some pack of skeptics on a ninnernet form.

Personally I have a mild interest in irrational behaviour, be it religious belief in general or nonsense like shroudism.

 

[catsmate]

For me that hypothesis is a non-starter. First it's too much of a coincidence for me that the cloth acquired exactly the right amount of neutrons to date it consistently to the period in which it first appears in the historical record. Second, the purported neutron sources are dodgy. If you want to propose that a supernatural event such as biblical resurrection produced all those neutrons, you've left any semblance of real science far in the dust behind you. If you want to propose a seismic or other natural event, you have to answer why there are no other examples of it in history. The practitioners of radiocarbon dating go to extreme lengths to discover and accommodate possible anomalous sources of ¹⁴C. If an earthquake is enough to throw off radiocarbon dating results, this would be of general interest and concern in the field.

It's really just a patina of science plastered over "magic god energy".

Indeed, if you have to propose that all these improbable and speculative events aligned perfectly in time and space to produce the cloth image only in the additionally coincidental case of Jesus of Nazareth, then why can't we propose similarly improbable activities on the part of the artist.

Indeed.

Well, those are certainly words.

If only they were aligned into coherent, meaningful, sentences.....

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The image as seen on the shroud would be extremely difficult to draw on the Pray Codex, because it is difficult to draw on a 4 meter by 1 meter linen cloth.

This excuse is nonsense. The image on the Shroud is just the outline of a person- the same person in the same pose as appears immediately above. Drawing such was obviously no problem for the illustrator.

Whingeing about the lack of an image on the Pray Codex is just that, whingeing. And no, I never mentioned that because it should be obvious that you don't get the evidence you want, just the evidence that exists.

No, it is not "whingeing". Nobody is aggrieved by the absence of the image, except perhaps shroudies.

That absence is lethal to the claim that the details in the Pray Codex illustrations are meant to represent the Shroud. And your only remedy is to make nonsense excuses.

 

[bobdroege7]

Here is the heterogeneity argument without the use of any statistics, just college algebra as taught in merican high school.

Starting with the radioactive decay equation

A(t) = A(0) e^ - (Lamda*t) where A(0) is the initial amount or activity, lambda is the quantity (ln/half life), A(t) is the amount or activity at time t, and e is e.

Take a sample with 10,000 C-14 atoms from 2000 years ago, and one with 10,000 atoms of C-14 from 500 years ago, and mix equal amounts of each.

So after 2000 years the first sample has 7851 atoms of C-14 and the second has 9412 atoms of C-14

So equal amounts of the first and second sample has 8632 atoms C-14

If you date a sample that has 8632 atoms C-14 from an original amount of 10,000, reversing the equation

ln(A(t)/A(0))/lambda then you would get a date for the mixture of 1216 years.

Therefore proving that homogeneity is crucial when it come to radiocarbon dating.

No valid appeals to authority allowed, just highschool math.

So it's not my knowledge of statistics, rather it's the whole lot of you lacking basic math skillz.

 

[catsmate]

Oh good grief. I will leave educating you in basic stats to others.
However I note that you haven't addressed any of the other outstanding points....

 

[JayUtah]

Here is the heterogeneity argument without the use of any statistics, just college algebra as taught in merican high school.

No, the problem will not shrink to fit simplistic math.

Therefore proving that homogeneity is crucial when it come to radiocarbon dating.

No, that's not how outliers are handled in radiocarbon dating.

No valid appeals to authority allowed, just highschool math.

So it's not my knowledge of statistics, rather it's the whole lot of you lacking basic math skillz.

No, the problem is bigger than high school math. All you've proven is that using an overly simplistic method gets you a useless answer.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Here is the heterogeneity argument without the use of any statistics, just college algebra as taught in merican high school.

Starting with the radioactive decay equation

A(t) = A(0) e^ - (Lamda*t) where A(0) is the initial amount or activity, lambda is the quantity (ln/half life), A(t) is the amount or activity at time t, and e is e.

Take a sample with 10,000 C-14 atoms from 2000 years ago, and one with 10,000 atoms of C-14 from 500 years ago, and mix equal amounts of each.

So after 2000 years the first sample has 7851 atoms of C-14 and the second has 9412 atoms of C-14

So equal amounts of the first and second sample has 8632 atoms C-14

If you date a sample that has 8632 atoms C-14 from an original amount of 10,000, reversing the equation

ln(A(t)/A(0))/lambda then you would get a date for the mixture of 1216 years.

ETA: NVM.

 

[bobdroege7]

Oh good grief. I will leave educating you in basic stats to others.
However I note that you haven't addressed any of the other outstanding points....

It's still not basic stats.

It's basic radioactive decay, which you still don't understand, even though it is a simple equation.