Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[tsig]

In order to speed the loading process for our members, the Shroud of Turin thread has been closed and this new thread opened. You can still visit and link to the old thread here. Thank you.

Loss Leader
-Moderating Team

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

So because there isn't evidence of micro-repair then there must be large-scale repair instead.

In fact the whole Shroud (Mediaeval artifact carbon dated to the 14th century) is not representative of the Greater Shroud^TM (mythical burial shroud of Christ).

The Shroud is the actual Burial Cloth of Jesus it's just that it's been completely patched til no original materiel is left.

 

[pakeha]

First of all, well done, Jabba!
My own first effort with Paint involved spoofing a Nigerian legal docco. Good times!

..If I can, I will get hold of a copy of Mottern's original paper on the X-rays, but it is not easily available.

That would be brilliant, hugh.

Why are you ignoring the Lebanese Tree Octopus?

I cry Pharaoh's indulgence for carlitos. It's not easy for us mere mortals to discern the LTO without having had an appropriate breakfast.

The breakfast nook

 

[Akhenaten]

The Shroud is the actual Burial Cloth of Jesus it's just that it's been completely patched til no original materiel is left.

Just like Theseus' Ship Tea Towel.

 

[Agatha]

This really is as pointless as birthers claiming they can determine the authenticity of a document from a scan hosted on the internet.

The banding is clearly visible in the x-ray photographs and continues uninterrupted throughout the sampled area. That fact alone simply precludes any additional material being added. The lighter and darker areas may be caused by natural variations in the colour of the flax threads used to make the linen, and may have other causes as well related to the bleaching of the threads before weaving, or the treatment of the linen once woven.

It is also possible that any number of the lighter or darker areas may only appear that way because of the lighting of the photograph or the changes inherent in hosting an image on the internet, or numerous other explanations that people who know about images can list.

What do you think is the cause of the lighter area you circled, Jabba, and what conclusions are you drawing from it? I really fail to see where you are going with this 'lighter area'.

 

[Slowvehicle]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/2TwbwrF.png[/qimg]

You left out the Isle of Langerhans, and the Land of the Kneew-Walking Turkeys!

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Banding/Xray/Lighter Section

Yes, I can see exactly the area you're referring to, and on enlarging the photo enormously, can point out two places where a couple of warp threads do appear a bit brighter than their surroundings. I just don't think it means anything...

Hugh,
- But, at the beginning (at the top) of this less obvious lighter section, the lighter section appears to turn and parallel the seam just as the seam changes direction and then attaches neatly to the lower more obvious lighter section as the lighter area, and the seam, return to their previous direction.
- In addition, this “factor” weakens when it begins to cross bands -- instead of following bands -- then strengthens as it begins to follow the bands again… In other words, crossing bands seems to weaken the effect of whatever this factor is.
- Don't these facts strongly support the conclusion that this middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same “factor?

 

[abaddon]

Hugh,
- But, at the beginning (at the top) of this less obvious lighter section, the lighter section appears to turn and parallel the seam just as the seam changes direction and then attaches neatly to the lower more obvious lighter section as the lighter area, and the seam, return to their previous direction.
- In addition, this “factor” weakens when it begins to cross bands -- instead of following bands -- then strengthens as it begins to follow the bands again… In other words, crossing bands seems to weaken the effect of whatever this factor is.
- Don't these facts strongly support the conclusion that this middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same “factor?

So you have basically done nothing. Right.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Banding/Xray

- What about the diagonal banding? Where does that come from?

 

[abaddon]

- What about the diagonal banding? Where does that come from?

14th century thread.

 

[HighRiser]

- What about the diagonal banding? Where does that come from?

The diagonal lines are 3-over-1. Have another look at the image. There's no disruption of the woven pattern. No doubled threads. No replaced threads.

 

[Mister Earl]

The important thing to take away from this, Jabba, is that there is no reweaving. Even if you blindly hit on a really crazy scheme where it could theoretically be possible, there certainly wouldn't be enough new material to have altered the carbon dating by thirteen centuries.

The shroud is a 14th century forgery. Full stop.

 

[hugh farey]

- What about the diagonal banding? Where does that come from?

Hugh,
- But, at the beginning (at the top) of this less obvious lighter section, the lighter section appears to turn and parallel the seam just as the seam changes direction and then attaches neatly to the lower more obvious lighter section as the lighter area, and the seam, return to their previous direction.
- In addition, this “factor” weakens when it begins to cross bands -- instead of following bands -- then strengthens as it begins to follow the bands again… In other words, crossing bands seems to weaken the effect of whatever this factor is.
- Don't these facts strongly support the conclusion that this middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same “factor?

You have to remember that "areas" don't exist of themselves. They don't "turn and parallel the seam." They are composed of threads, which are more or less vertical or horizontal. Sometimes the random assemblage of slightly thicker threads results in what looks like a vertical or horizontal 'area.' There are some vertical and some horizontal area which meet or cross, but to say that the whole area follows some zigzag or diagonal path confuses the wood for the trees. Depending on the quality of your photo, blow it up as large as you can and see how the individual threads vary in colour as they cross the image.

Note to Agatha: remember these are X-rays. The actual colour of the cloth and whether it's been bleached or not won't show up; we're looking at density and very little else.

 

[Mister Earl]

The important thing to take away from this, Jabba, is that there is no reweaving. Even if you blindly hit on a really crazy scheme where it could theoretically be possible, there certainly wouldn't be enough new material to have altered the carbon dating by thirteen centuries.

The shroud is a 14th century forgery. Full stop.

You'd have better luck proving bigfoot exists.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hugh,
- But, at the beginning (at the top) of this less obvious lighter section, the lighter section appears to turn and parallel the seam just as the seam changes direction and then attaches neatly to the lower more obvious lighter section as the lighter area, and the seam, return to their previous direction.
- In addition, this “factor” weakens when it begins to cross bands -- instead of following bands -- then strengthens as it begins to follow the bands again… In other words, crossing bands seems to weaken the effect of whatever this factor is.
- Don't these facts strongly support the conclusion that this middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same “factor?

It seems the skeptics not only have to refute your arguments, but they have to make them for you as well. What is it you're contending?

"This middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same 'factor'" is not a conclusion. It is a vague statement with no meaning.

 

[Jabba]

You have to remember that "areas" don't exist of themselves. They don't "turn and parallel the seam." They are composed of threads, which are more or less vertical or horizontal. Sometimes the random assemblage of slightly thicker threads results in what looks like a vertical or horizontal 'area.' There are some vertical and some horizontal area which meet or cross, but to say that the whole area follows some zigzag or diagonal path confuses the wood for the trees. Depending on the quality of your photo, blow it up as large as you can and see how the individual threads vary in colour as they cross the image.

Note to Agatha: remember these are X-rays. The actual colour of the cloth and whether it's been bleached or not won't show up; we're looking at density and very little else.

Hugh,
- You seem to be saying that the shape I'm perceiving just doesn't make sense because all that radiographs show is relative density, and there would be no reason that a particular density would behave in the manner I'm claiming. Sorry about that wording -- hopefully, you can figure out what I mean.
- If you can, am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Garrette]

Hugh,
- You seem to be saying that the shape I'm perceiving just doesn't make sense because all that radiographs show is relative density, and there would be no reason that a particular density would behave in the manner I'm claiming. Sorry about that wording -- hopefully, you can figure out what I mean.
- If you can, am I understanding you correctly?

Allow me to try, and I grant that I may be misunderstanding and so will humbly accept any correction.

Densities don't behave in any manner at all. The density of any given weave will vary naturally simply due to the fact that threads vary, especially hand-spun threads. After the fact of weaving the density variations may appear to form patterns or to conform with other topography of the cloth, but it means no more than the fact that the water in a puddle fits the hole in which it sits.

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh,
- You seem to be saying that the shape I'm perceiving just doesn't make sense because all that radiographs show is relative density, and there would be no reason that a particular density would behave in the manner I'm claiming. Sorry about that wording -- hopefully, you can figure out what I mean.
- If you can, am I understanding you correctly?

Allow me to try, and I grant that I may be misunderstanding and so will humbly accept any correction.

Densities don't behave in any manner at all. The density of any given weave will vary naturally simply due to the fact that threads vary, especially hand-spun threads. After the fact of weaving the density variations may appear to form patterns or to conform with other topography of the cloth, but it means no more than the fact that the water in a puddle fits the hole in which it sits.

I think Garrette has explained it exactly.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hugh,
- But, at the beginning (at the top) of this less obvious lighter section, the lighter section appears to turn and parallel the seam just as the seam changes direction and then attaches neatly to the lower more obvious lighter section as the lighter area, and the seam, return to their previous direction.

Only because you drew some red lines on the image to make it look that way.

On an image without those lines, including Hugh's image with the two ellipses, it doesn't look anything like what you're describing.

- In addition, this “factor” weakens when it begins to cross bands -- instead of following bands -- then strengthens as it begins to follow the bands again… In other words, crossing bands seems to weaken the effect of whatever this factor is.

I think you're once again seeing things that you want to see, rather than what's actually there.

In any case, it's irrelevant.

What you desperately need to show here are interruptions of the banding which would indicate that there was some kind of damage to the cloth, not interruptions in your imaginary "factor".

- Don't these facts strongly support the conclusion that this middle section is just a less obvious piece of the same “factor?

They aren't facts - they're your speculations based on seeing things that aren't there and ignoring things that are as plain as day to everyone else.

They are supportive of nothing other than straw-clutching desperation.

 

[Akhenaten]

You have to remember that "areas" don't exist of themselves. They don't "turn and parallel the seam." They are composed of threads, which are more or less vertical or horizontal. Sometimes the random assemblage of slightly thicker threads results in what looks like a vertical or horizontal 'area.' There are some vertical and some horizontal area which meet or cross, but to say that the whole area follows some zigzag or diagonal path confuses the wood for the trees. Depending on the quality of your photo, blow it up as large as you can and see how the individual threads vary in colour as they cross the image.

Hugh,
- You seem to be saying that the shape I'm perceiving just doesn't make sense because all that radiographs show is relative density, and there would be no reason that a particular density would behave in the manner I'm claiming. Sorry about that wording -- hopefully, you can figure out what I mean.

One of these things is not like the other thing.

- If you can, am I understanding you correctly?

Since you insist on working with Jabbanese translations of what Hugh (and everyone else, when you bother to respond to them) is actually saying, my guess would be that it's highly unlikely.

 

[Stuart]

I need to step out of the shadows of lurkdom.

A bit of background:- About 10 years ago I used to work for a company that used a lot of cotton fabric. When I say a lot we have a weekly delivery of 100 or so rolls of fabric 250 metres or so long and 2 – 2.5 metres wide. Each roll was inspected for faults, tears / rips from transit, joined / knotted threads from the manufacturing process, cotton seed heads still in the fabric etc. It was inspected on delivery and again before use as fabric containing these faults could not be used in the manufacturing process.

The inspection process was to run the fabric over a large light box where all of the faults listed above (faults, tears / rips from transit, joined / knotted threads from the manufacturing process, cotton seed heads) could very easily be identified. I had that job, it was me for three years, 40 hours a week, who inspected that fabric. 5 km a week over 3 years, over 600 km of fabric whilst I was there. All this was done using the naked eye.

OK back to the present, from looking at the pictures posted, in my (ex) professional opinion, there are no faults, joins, jiggery pokery in any way whatsoever indicating any patching / joining of threads.

Please step away from the shroud – there is nothing to see here.

Now, back to lurkdom.