• 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?"

bobdroege7 said:
The shroud has been dated to the first century AD by several methods.

"Moreover, other dating methods agree in the assignment of the TS to the first century AD [5,10,11,12]. Spectroscopic methods, based on Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy/Attenuated Total Reflectance [10] and Raman spectroscopy [11], date the Shroud to 300 Before Christ (BC) ± 400 years and 200 BC ± 500 years, respectively. The mechanical multi-parametric method, based on an analysis of five parameters, including the breaking load and Young’s modulus and the loss factor, after an adequate calibration based on the results of two dozen samples of known age, dates TS as 400 AD ± 400 years old [12]. Estimates of the kinetic constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin suggest that TS has an age range from 1300 to 3000 years [5]. A recent numismatic analysis [13] proposes that TS was already present in 692 AD."

From: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
Click to expand...

Hilarious!
If this paper is to be believed, the Shroud could date to anything from 300 to 1000 years before Jesus was even born.
I'm not sure this is the definitive proof you were hoping it would be.

ETA: "Numismatic"? Are there images of coins on the Shroud?
 
zooterkin said:
:dl:
Click to expand...
IOW, you only believe science when it says what you want to hear. I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read or view any of the links that present the scientific evidence that the Shroud dates to the time of Christ and that it shows the image of a man who suffered all the same wounds that the Bible says Christ suffered, including the crown of thorns and the piercing of his side with a spear (two wounds that were unheard of in regular crucifixions).

The technology to create the negative image seen on the Shroud did not even exist until the 20th century.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
IOW, you only believe science when it says what you want to hear. I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read or view any of the links that present the scientific evidence that the Shroud dates to the time of Christ and that it shows the image of a man who suffered all the same wounds that the Bible says Christ suffered, including the crown of thorns and the piercing of his side with a spear (two wounds that were unheard of in regular crucifixions).

The technology to create the negative image seen on the Shroud did not even exist until the 20th century.
Click to expand...

This nonsense has been demolished over and over again. There's even a currently active thread where it's being demolished yet again:

A

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

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...
 
The shroud has been reproduced...
Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.
PIGMENT, BLOODSTAINS AND SCORCHES

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.
They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith...
Click to expand...
Link
 
Even if the shroud had been shown to be almost 2000 years old howwould that be proof of the resurrection of a Jesus? Were no other people back then wrapped in shrouds?
 
zooterkin said:
:dl:
Click to expand...
In church's all over the world yesterday, they read they resurrection according to John, which completely contradicts the possibility of the shroud being real (it described multiple cloths, including one that was wrapped around the head; if there is a cloth wrapped around his head, you don't have the cloth just laying on his head like is shown on the shroud)
 
Darat said:
Even if the shroud had been shown to be almost 2000 years old howwould that be proof of the resurrection of a Jesus? Were no other people back then wrapped in shrouds?
Click to expand...
Heck, the supposed shroud was obviously not wrapped around any body.

This is the thing I don't understand. A priori it doesn't look like what you would get if you wrap a cloth around a body. In fact, there are shroudies who have even admitted as such and claim it is a 2D energy projection on a cloth that was draped over the body.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
We have tangible evidence of Christ's resurrection: the Shroud of Turin.
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 12
The shroud nonsense was a medieval fake to fool gullible believers like you into parting with more offering money. I...hope you didn't send any of these scammers money...did you??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cosmic Yak said:
Hilarious!
If this paper is to be believed, the Shroud could date to anything from 300 to 1000 years before Jesus was even born.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that they would have symbolically reused a shroud from a thousand year old prophet, say that of Jeremiah. Because as we all know, Jeremiah was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine. Never understood a single word about proof, but he equivocated fine.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Hilarious!
If this paper is to be believed, the Shroud could date to anything from 300 to 1000 years before Jesus was even born.
I'm not sure this is the definitive proof you were hoping it would be.

ETA: "Numismatic"? Are there images of coins on the Shroud?
Click to expand...
The range of dates exclude the Damon dates, so that is indeed definitive.

I am not anywhere near convinced that there are coin images on the shroud.
 
I definitely do not believe in resurrection.

Mike and I get to different conclusions from the same data.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The range of dates exclude the Damon dates, so that is indeed definitive.

I am not anywhere near convinced that there are coin images on the shroud.
Click to expand...
Did you not even read the source you cited? It's almost as if you post things without understanding them.

From the footnotes, it's clear that the connection is that it's being claimed that the images on Byzantine coins were influenced by the shroud, implying it must have existed at that time. (Nonsense, of course, but that's the claim.)

13. Fanti, G. Byzantine Coins Influenced by the Shroud of Christ; Jenny Stanford Publishing: New Delhi, India, 2022; ISBN 9789814877886. [Google Scholar]
Click to expand...
 
Thermal said:
I'm pretty sure that they would have symbolically reused a shroud from a thousand year old prophet, say that of Jeremiah. Because as we all know, Jeremiah was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine. Never understood a single word about proof, but he equivocated fine.
Click to expand...
Joy to the world!
 
Darat said:
I think it was more along the lines of how there is always a Loch Ness monster story at the start of each tourist season, these relics were used to get the tourists, sorry pilgrims to visit the towns and cities.
Click to expand...

There has already been The Traditional First Nessie Sighting of the year: pix taken a few weeks ago.

Looks like a rock just off the shore to me.
 
Here is an informative interview with photographic expert Barrie Schwortz, one of the experts selected to be on the team of scholars who were allowed to examine the Shroud in 1978. Among other things, he thoroughly explains why the 1988 carbon dating analysis was invalid (if not fraudulent). He also explains how VP8 imagery analysis proves that the Shroud's image contains 3D data even though it is a 2D image. Again, no one knew how to put 3D info in a 2D image until the 20th century--indeed, the technology to do this did not exist until the 20th century.

 
catsmate said:
Oh look, more bollocks.

Sigh. Not this nonsense again. We've covered the FTIR and Adler's claims already in this thread. It doesn't demonstrate the age of the Lirey cloth.

BTW the "paper" to which you link isn't about FTIR it's about WAXS. Try and get your story straight......

We've also covered WAXS previously, along with Fanti's efforts to try and prove the cloth is genuine. Remember? Dodgy science, conflicts of interest, dubious samples and the attitude of archaeologist to Fanti's magical technique.
As an aside, Fanit's alleged sample comes from the same threads as the radiocarbon dating; hence if shroudies don't accept them as representative for that test, then it's blatantly hypocritical to accept them for WAXS.


So, @bobdroege7 what exactly are the "several methods" that you claim date the Lirey cloth to first century Palestine.
Click to expand...
Inspector Clouseau, yes the paper is about WAXS, but it cites the FTIR.

Here let me fix this for you:

We've also covered Damon previously, along with Tite's efforts to try and prove the cloth is fake. Remember? Dodgy science, conflicts of interest, dubious samples and the attitude of artist to d'Arcis's magical technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom