• 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?"

Agatha said:
There are many useful posts discussing the Shroud of Turin in this thread (and in the four associated continuation threads): https://www1.internationalskeptics....cle-of-the-shroud-blood-on-the-shroud.226761/

My memory is that the possibility of the cloth being draped over a human body and whether the result would resemble the SoT was thoroughly discussed, but as search isn't currently working I can't point you to particular posts at the moment.

Happy reading!
Click to expand...
A thread kept going by someone Just Asking Questions, thank goodness we don't see that kind of poster these days
 
The two images of back and front are different heights. Both of which are way too tall for a typical man of that era and región. The back is taller.

The front image has a break line at the neck making as if the body and head are separate images, the head appears too small for the body.

The back image shows notable fisheye effect, the front of the head is in (relative) striking detail without fisheye effect.

On top of all that 1st century tradition would have a shroud of torn strips of línen wrapped around the body much like egyptian mummies. Leaving a pile of rags to piece together to somehow get an image.
This sheet is totally atypical of anything known.
 
Last edited:
abstract78 said:
Ok, I hope so actually!
Click to expand...
The Shroud of Turin is not a suitable candidate for the x-ray based method in question because the method requires the specimen to have remained in relatively invariant conditions (specifically temperature) for the entirety of its existence. This was not at all true for the shroud, which is known to have been subjected to wide extremes of temperature.
 
abstract78 said:
I read scientists in Italy used a new X-ray technique and over turned or disputed this?
Click to expand...
If we could had a source for this claim we could evaluate it for ourselves. What was the new X-ray technique? How did it differ from the initial radiocarbon dating? Does it require a sample? The Vatican is very reticent to give away any of those.

We need more information if we are going to evaluate this claim.
 
To add to what Jay Utah says, this is from that link:
The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition,
under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth.
Click to expand...
My reading of that is that the x-ray process does not prove the TS is 2,000 years old.
 
abstract78 said:
If the cloth were draped over the body starting from the feet, running up the front, over the head, and down the back, the head should appear stretched due to its three-dimensional shape. While we do see a space (marked in red), does it appear stretched enough? The fabric would need to cover the top of the head, which would cause elongation when the cloth is flattened. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any professional images or measurements to confirm whether the Shroud matches what we’d expect. However, I’ve hand-drawn the head (in blue), the back of the head (in orange), and the area where we’d expect to see the top of the head elongated (in red). What do you think—does the Shroud display the expected elongation we’d anticipate from a 3D image being flattened into a 2D one?


View attachment 58708
Click to expand...
It's an artist's representation of a burial shroud so you should expect there to be some licence with the anatomy.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
My reading of that is that the x-ray process does not prove the TS is 2,000 years old.
Click to expand...
The paper correctly notes that the process is accurate only if certain conditions hold, then goes on simply to assume they must have. The paper attempts to control for thermal shocks (i.e., the fires the shroud endured) by exposing control fabric to high heat and then immediately measuring the x-ray scatter. The authors argue on the basis of that experiment that thermal shock does not affect the accuracy of the measurement. However, the proper control must consider the effects of thermal shocks long ago and their long-term effect on the cellulose degradation rate that the x-ray scatter method proposes to measure. In summary, the authors have not convincingly controlled for confounding variables.
 
I note the principal researcher of this 'paper' is Liberato De Caro, the Catholic whackjobwho "proved" birth of Jesus in 1BC by misrepresentation of Jewish pilgrimages, "proved" the 'Star of Bethlehem' was real and also established the
"true date" of the alleged crucifixion and resurrection.
:rolleyes:

BTW when this 'paper' was published in a real journal it was later retracted due to lack of controls, lack of evidence their technique actually works and lack of provenance for the supposed shroud fibres.
 
abstract78 said:
If the cloth were draped over the body starting from the feet, running up the front, over the head, and down the back, the head should appear stretched due to its three-dimensional shape. While we do see a space (marked in red), does it appear stretched enough? The fabric would need to cover the top of the head, which would cause elongation when the cloth is flattened. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any professional images or measurements to confirm whether the Shroud matches what we’d expect. However, I’ve hand-drawn the head (in blue), the back of the head (in orange), and the area where we’d expect to see the top of the head elongated (in red). What do you think—does the Shroud display the expected elongation we’d anticipate from a 3D image being flattened into a 2D one?


View attachment 58708
Click to expand...
I think you need to take into account Lorentz contraction cancelling out some or all of the expected elongation.
 
JayUtah said:
"Secular" does not here mean "the opposite of religion." It relates to Latin sæculum, meaning "an age" or "a long period of time." Average secular temperature means the temperature averaged over about 100 years.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was a bit weird.
 
catsmate said:
So, as this nonsense has been resurrected let's look at the facts.

The evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) 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
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) 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:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) 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

Radiocarbon dating.
And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. the samples were subjected to a dating technique called accelerator mass spectroscopy, selected because it required less sample material than earlier techniques; three labs, Oxford, Arizona and Zürich were selected to carry out the testing
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. the three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples.
8. later various claims of mysterious contaminants or patching were invoked to justify non-acceptance of the dating results

And finally more than any shroudie ever wanted to know about decontamination of the shroud samples.
Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

Zürich.
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.

The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

Arizona.
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

Oxford.
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.

Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.

As a result of this overwhelming evidence it is reasonable to assume that:

The "Shroud" is a medieval fake.

View attachment 58711
Click to expand...
 
catsmate said:
So, as this nonsense has been resurrected let's look at the facts.

The evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:

1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure

2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough)

3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East

4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake

5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period

6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods

7. Analytic:
n) 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
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) 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:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355

9. Serological:
v) 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

Radiocarbon dating.
And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. the samples were subjected to a dating technique called accelerator mass spectroscopy, selected because it required less sample material than earlier techniques; three labs, Oxford, Arizona and Zürich were selected to carry out the testing
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. the three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples.
8. later various claims of mysterious contaminants or patching were invoked to justify non-acceptance of the dating results

And finally more than any shroudie ever wanted to know about decontamination of the shroud samples.
Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

Zürich.
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.

The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.

Arizona.
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.

Oxford.
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.

Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.

As a result of this overwhelming evidence it is reasonable to assume that:

The "Shroud" is a medieval fake.

View attachment 58711
Click to expand...
Thank you for that great response. I agree with everything, and I also agree that it is much more likely to be a fake. However, for clarity, I have a couple of thoughts:

"Likewise, the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals, which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough)."

A 3D image was released showing that the body, which was allegedly wrapped, had its head tilted forward. This was explained by the fact that, while on the cross, the head would hang down, and rigor mortis would fix the head in that position. This would explain how the hands could reach down to the groin, as the body would essentially be slightly bent over. I have no idea how the 3D imaging was done or how they determined the head was hanging down. However, if it's a fake and the head was hanging down, it seems like an oddly specific detail for the artist to consider. I wondered what you thought of this detail?

"Microscopic examination [...] shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments from the period of its origin."

I thought no pigments were found and that the color/burn is only 0.2 microns deep, which is something a pigment could not achieve.
 
8enotto said:
The two images of back and front are different heights. Both of which are way too tall for a typical man of that era and región. The back is taller.

The front image has a break line at the neck making as if the body and head are separate images, the head appears too small for the body.

The back image shows notable fisheye effect, the front of the head is in (relative) striking detail without fisheye effect.

On top of all that 1st century tradition would have a shroud of torn strips of línen wrapped around the body much like egyptian mummies. Leaving a pile of rags to piece together to somehow get an image.
This sheet is totally atypical of anything known.
Click to expand...
Ah, if the two images of back and front are different heights then that really would be hard for believers to explain away. I didn't realise this.
 
JayUtah said:
The Shroud of Turin is not a suitable candidate for the x-ray based method in question because the method requires the specimen to have remained in relatively invariant conditions (specifically temperature) for the entirety of its existence. This was not at all true for the shroud, which is known to have been subjected to wide extremes of temperature.
Click to expand...
Great point.
 
catsmate said:
I note the principal researcher of this 'paper' is Liberato De Caro, the Catholic whackjobwho "proved" birth of Jesus in 1BC by misrepresentation of Jewish pilgrimages, "proved" the 'Star of Bethlehem' was real and also established the
"true date" of the alleged crucifixion and resurrection.
:rolleyes:

BTW when this 'paper' was published in a real journal it was later retracted due to lack of controls, lack of evidence their technique actually works and lack of provenance for the supposed shroud fibres.
Click to expand...
Crazy. I learned about the Shroud by 'Dr. John Campbell' who has a channel about Health -https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching/videos - he suddenly drops a video about the Shroud which was totally unrelated to any of his previous videos. It really annoyed me because as an 'ex' viewer of his, I didn't sign up to be told about this, especially if it's a load of bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom