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

[Hercules56]

It's a fraud and I feel sorry for people who allow themselves to be fraudulated by this.
The thing looks like a damn cartoon.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Does Schwortz have any background in radiometric dating methods? Was he involved with the collection, testing or analysis he is criticizing? If not, why should we consider his opinion on the carbon dating?

 

[Hercules56]

Evem back in the crazy insane anti-science 1300s people were calling this painting a fraud.

 

[bobdroege7]

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.)

No, I did not read every footnote.

Why nonsense?

 

[Mojo]

Inspector Clouseau...

Could the image on the shroud be a "minkey"?

ETA: it's obviously not human.

 

[Mojo]

It's a fraud and I feel sorry for people who allow themselves to be fraudulated by this.
The thing looks like a damn cartoon.

Even a stopped clock...

 

[zooterkin]

No, I did not read every footnote.

Why nonsense?

I'd have thought it was obvious. Because most Byzantine coins were made before the shroud, they couldn't have been influenced by it.

 

[acbytesla]

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.)

No, I did not read every footnote.

Why nonsense?

The source material is nonsense? This is the level of thinking we're dealing with today. "Hey, I've got this great story, but where the story originated doesn't matter?

Seriously Bob?

 

[bobdroege7]

The source material is nonsense? This is the level of thinking we're dealing with today. "Hey, I've got this great story, but where the story originated doesn't matter?

Seriously Bob?

Please elaborate, do you think I am saying the source material I posted is nonsense.

The radiocarbon paper is seriously flawed, I have posted many reasons why. Enough flaws to exclude the 13th century dating. The most damning being the fact that the radiocarbon samples were photographed and those photos show that they were taking from a patched area mixing old threads with new.

So other dating methods are sourced with results that do not exclude a 1st century date, which would be before the Byzantine coins were minted.

 

[zooterkin]

Please elaborate, do you think I am saying the source material I posted is nonsense.

The radiocarbon paper is seriously flawed, I have posted many reasons why. Enough flaws to exclude the 13th century dating. The most damning being the fact that the radiocarbon samples were photographed and those photos show that they were taking from a patched area mixing old threads with new.

I'm sure you'll be able to prove this. Do go on....

 

[arthwollipot]

Evem back in the crazy insane anti-science 1300s people were calling this painting a fraud.

In fact, I believe the earliest documented evidence we have for the Shroud's existence is a letter to the Vatican saying "Hey, we've caught this guy who admitted trying to flog off this fake shroud of Jesus - what should we do with him?"

 

[acbytesla]

Please elaborate, do you think I am saying the source material I posted is nonsense.

The radiocarbon paper is seriously flawed, I have posted many reasons why. Enough flaws to exclude the 13th century dating. The most damning being the fact that the radiocarbon samples were photographed and those photos show that they were taking from a patched area mixing old threads with new.

So other dating methods are sourced with results that do not exclude a 1st century date, which would be before the Byzantine coins were minted.

I'm saying you dismissing the source material that the footnotes referenced out of hand is nonsense.

 

[catsmate]

No, the carbon dating was done on a tiny piece of fabric from the edge of the Shroud that was not part of the original and that had been handled dozens of times over the centuries.

Repetitive bollocks. The area selected by radiocarbon dating was part of the cloth, it was examined (and the area has been examined subsequently) by everal textile experts (i.e people who know vastly more than you) and there was no magic invisible patch,

The issue of contamination was well understood, hence the thorough, even extreme, cleansing methods. Which we've covered previously not that you are going to bother to read those facts.

The pollen evidence is important:

No actually it's not. In fact, as previously covered in this very thread, it's utter rubbish. Created using dubious methods by an "experts" who demonstrated his incompetence and criminality elsewhere. It has been long debunked. Even hardcore shroudies shy away from it.

The image on the Shroud, though 2D, contains 3D information. Scientists did not know how to put 3D information on 2D images until modern times. The fact that the Shroud contains 3D information was not discovered until the 1970s.

Absolute rubbish.

The Shroud image is a negative image.

No it's not.

Multiple scientific analyses of the Shroud have proved that there are no traces of paint of any kind on it.

A lie. I refer you to Walter McCrone's analysis and his findings regarding pigments.

So the idea that a clever forger in the 14th century painted the image is impossible.

What do you mean "forger"? The Lirey cloth was probably not created as a deliberate fake shroud, just used as one.

Graphics analysis of the Shroud proves the cloth was once wrapped around a human body.

Also untrue.

I recommend these two documentaries on the Shroud:

<>

No thanks. I prefer science rather than Apologetic ramblings.

 

[catsmate]

We have tangible evidence of Christ's resurrection: the Shroud of Turin.

No "we" don't.
What we do have is further evidence of the weak faith of god-bothers and their desperate need for props.

In 2022 researchers in Italy published the results of a study that used the technique of wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) to analyze a small piece of the Shroud.

We have covered Fanti's ravings and the WAXS technique in this thread. Of course you haven't bothered to read it, or the numerous other debunkings of these claims.
It's nonsense.

<gibber snippage>

The carbon dating done on the Shroud in 1988 was invalid because it was done on a piece of fabric from a part of the edge of the Shroud that was not part of the original cloth and that was handled repeatedly over the centuries.

Bollocks. For the reasons stated previously. There was no magic, invisible, patch.

More evidence of the Shroud's authenticity:

Holy Shroud of Turin’s Authenticity Can No Longer Be Disputed, Expert Asserts

Jean-Christian Petitfils, who has studied the Holy Shroud for more than 40 years, discusses the findings detailed in his new book that is labeled as a ‘definitive investigation’ of the precious linen cloth.

www.ncregister.com

https://catholicweekly.com.au/new-evidence-supporting-the-shroud-is-too-strong-to-ignore-says-journalist/

No, more god-botheration nonsense.

An Oxford graduate and former skeptic of the Shroud explains the evidence that changed his mind about the Shroud:

Also not true.

 

[catsmate]

Indeed. As I have said before the pathetic clinging of the god-believers to nonsense like the Lirey cloth as evidence for their particular god-myth is evidence for nothing other than their own desperation.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Yeah, facts. They have no place in organised religion.

ETA: "Numismatic"? Are there images of coins on the Shroud?

Ah, that's actually a matter we haven't covered in this thread so far.

Yes, some shroudies (e.g our old friend Fanti, further demeaning his prior connection to real science) claim there are images used on Byzantine coins that match the image they think lurks in the Lirey cloth.

It is, of course, utter nonsense. They shroudies also manage to contradict each other in their attempts to "prove" this assertion.


There are also some shroudies who assert that the figure in the Lirey cloth has coins places on it's eyes and claim that, despite the abysmal quality of the images, these can be traced to the first century Roman empire. It was first promulgated by Francis Filas (a Jesuit and therefore someone who should know better) back in the late '70s. Even the majority of shroudies doubt it and one of their own, Antonio Lombatti, debunked it almost thirty years ago.

 

[catsmate]

IOW, you only believe science when it says what you want to hear.

No. You only accept science when you can twist and distort it to support you existing prejudices.

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).

Bollocks. We've covered all your assertions before. Probably most participants in this thread, except @bobdroege7, know far more about the Lirey cloth than you do.

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

Absolute gibberish.

 

[catsmate]

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?"'

Jan 27, 2025

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...

• abstract78
• shroud of turin
• Replies: 2,369
• Forum: Religion and Philosophy

That's this thread. Did I miss something while enjoying a break?

 

[catsmate]

A Relic become Real not because of its Provenance, but because of the Belief people have in its authenticity - official Church Doctrine.

But the RCC has never declared the cloth to be a relic. They have been very careful. Just enough suggestion to let the sheep fleece themselves.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sigh. Your pattern of behavious is dropping links into this thread as if they support your various assertions. When it's pointed out to you that, as often is the case, that they don't.

"Not from the main cloth" is an outright lie.

Yep. He's talking nonsense because, as he admits, he doesn't know where the sub-samples came from. And he actually gets the samples wromng too.
Nonsense.

Oh look, more childish insults. Yes I know what the shroudies keep claiming, I also know it's simple not true,.

No he's not. Firstly as Atkinson is forced to admit he doesn't actually know the order of the samples, hence his "gradient" claims is rather dubious.
Damon, the principal author of original Nature paper regarding the radiocarbon results, made no such claims.

Oh the frantic back-peddling....

The samples were fine. The experts discussed the sampling location, the cuts were made, the samples decontaminated and the tests run. You can either accept reality, that the shroud is a medieval construction, or indulge in further fantasisintg.
Bollocks.
I know you've run away, time after time, from addressing the other evidence for the medieval original of the shroud, but they're not going away.

But, as you've apparently gone into full fringe reset mode:

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. This strongly suggests the shroud only came into existence in the medieval period, rather than the first century.

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), at least for the vast majority of humanity.

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. Likewise the stylised coverage of the genitals.

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

Oh good grief...... This is really beyond stupid.

No, many of the arguments you list are downright silly--and were soundly debunked years ago.

Your continued reliance on the carbon dating is untenable, given what we now know about it. It turns out that the scientists who did the C-14 analysis cherry-picked which test results to cite and ignored test results that discredited the accuracy of the analysis. The sample the scientists used was cut from a part of the edge of the cloth that was not part of the original and that we know was handled repeatedly over the years. Dr. Brian Chilton:

The carbon-14 dating has now been largely discredited by the majority of researchers studying the Shroud. This includes four research papers, written by 12 experts, and published in peer-reviewed academic journals, all of whom agree that the carbon-14 dating was flawed. (LINK)

The WAXS dating analysis puts the Shroud's origin in the first century AD.

The argument that the Shroud's image was painted was debunked decades ago. From the STURP final report on the 1978 analysis of the Shroud:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. (LINK)

When are you going to explain how 3D information managed to get "painted" into a 2D negative image? Again, the technology to input 3D info into a 2D image, much less into a negative 2D image, did not even exist until the 20th century.

Some articles on the Shroud's authenticity:

New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin - Bellator Christi

New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin By: Brian G. Chilton, M.Div., Ph.D. | March 31, 2024 positive image on the left, negative on the right

bellatorchristi.com

The 1978 Scientific Examination

www.shroud.com

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions

www.shroud.com

The VP-8 Image Analyzer

New evidence indicates Turin Shroud not a European forgery

thecatholicherald.com

Allow me to repost the informative interview with photographic expert Barrie Schwortz, who was one of the experts on the team of scholars who were allowed to examine the Shroud in 1978. Among other things, he details 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. The interview with Barrie Schwortz: