The Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by sonhouse
After all, it was created around the year 700 if I am not mistaken. The scientists who sampled the shroud when it was available to scientists took as a sample a repaired section which clocked in around 1400 or so but that was a big mistake taking a repair job. They shoud have had the sense to have seen it was a repair which reason would have suggested it c ...[text shortened]... o prove the date way later than JC. At any rate they did not get a sample of the original cloth.

The scientists in question had no idea it was a repair, and I am not sure there is good reason to think it was a repair. What is your source that it was such an obvious repair that you label the scientists stupid, blind or crooked?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The scientists in question had no idea it was a repair, and I am not sure there is good reason to think it was a repair. What is your source that it was such an obvious repair that you label the scientists stupid, blind or crooked?

You didn't see the photo's I guess. It clearly showed the corner, about maybe 4 cm ^2 of an obvious patch. If they had actually been observant they would have taken the patch and a few square mm of surround but it is way too late for corrections now. The religious authorities don't want to be shown to be part of a fraud so scientists will never get another chance.

There is a full length image of the shroud, if you look closely you see an obvious patch in the lower left hand corner. You tell me why they would choose that particular area to sample if they were truly unbiased:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Looking at the full image I also noticed a longer piece in the upper right hand corner, also an obvious repair job.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You didn't see the photo's I guess. It clearly showed the corner, about maybe 4 cm ^2 of an obvious patch.

And what makes you think they took the sample from that obvious patch?

There is a full length image of the shroud, if you look closely you see an obvious patch in the lower left hand corner. You tell me why they would choose that particular area to sample if they were truly unbiased:
You tell me why you believe they chose that particular area.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what makes you think they took the sample from that obvious patch?

[b]There is a full length image of the shroud, if you look closely you see an obvious patch in the lower left hand corner. You tell me why they would choose that particular area to sample if they were truly unbiased:
You tell me why you believe they chose that particular area.[/b]

Either they were biased and knew what they were doing in selecting a portion of the cloth obviously not original or they were just plain stupid picking a portion of the cloth they figured would not get further damaged or some such rot.

Either way it is at best sloppy science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Either they were biased and knew what they were doing in selecting a portion of the cloth obviously not original or they were just plain stupid picking a portion of the cloth they figured would not get further damaged or some such rot.

Either way it is at best sloppy science.

Far more likely is that you are mistaken that they selected a portion of the cloth that was obviously not original. Its interesting that you have failed to give any reference to back up your claim that they did. Instead you are trying to dodge the question.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Far more likely is that you are mistaken that they selected a portion of the cloth that was obviously not original. Its interesting that you have failed to give any reference to back up your claim that they did. Instead you are trying to dodge the question.

Did you see the image I sent from Wiki? It shows a full lenth image and there is a repair job in lower left hand corner and a longer one in upper left hand corner, obvious repair job because the pieces are different colors. I think they also said the fibers on the repair job were a lot rougher than the original.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Did you see the image I sent from Wiki? It shows a full lenth image and there is a repair job in lower left hand corner and a longer one in upper left hand corner, obvious repair job because the pieces are different colors. I think they also said the fibers on the repair job were a lot rougher than the original.

The bigger issue is how we cannot figure out how the image was 'put' on the cloth. It was not painted, and we cannot produce the same with our best technology today.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Did you see the image I sent from Wiki? It shows a full lenth image and there is a repair job in lower left hand corner and a longer one in upper left hand corner, obvious repair job because the pieces are different colors. I think they also said the fibers on the repair job were a lot rougher than the original.

Yes, I saw the image from Wiki. Did you read my response? Apparently not.
I'll try again.
1. What makes you think that the scientists got the material from the obvious repair job area?
2. Why do you keep dodging that question?

Originally posted by chaney3
The bigger issue is how we cannot figure out how the image was 'put' on the cloth. It was not painted, and we cannot produce the same with our best technology today.

Of course we can produce the same with out best technology today. You keep making ridiculous claims of this nature that are simply obviously false.

The most likely explanation for the way the image got there is that it was done using early photographic processes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I saw the image from Wiki. Did you read my response? Apparently not.
I'll try again.
1. What makes you think that the scientists got the material from the obvious repair job area?
2. Why do you keep dodging that question?

Look at page 13 of this report:

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

It clearly shows the samples removed from the lower left hand side and seems to include original cloth with repaired cloth. Some labs got repaired cloth, you can see that in the image.


Page 21 shows splicing of two sections of different kinds of fiber, a repair job.

And the bottom line from that report:

"CONCLUSIONS
Linen-production technology indicates that the Shroud of Turin is probably older than indicated by the
date obtained in 1988. There seems to be ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the
radiocarbon analysis; therefore, the reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth was
produced"

Get that part? An anomalous area was sampled in 88?

@chaney3
It is the fact that no other 'cloth' can produce a picture on a photo negative, which is not supposed to be possible.

A photo of a cloth should not produce an image on a film negative.

This cannot be produced today, despite some posters implying it can.

The shroud is the only cloth, when a photo is taken, produces an image on a negative.

Meaning, if you take a photo of any other cloth, no image will appear on the photo negative.

This is why the shroud stands out.

Are you saying that if a camera takes a picture of the shroud, then the image on the shroud is recorded on the film in the camera, whereas if a camera takes a picture of some other cloth (such as a Persian rug or a medieval tapestry) then the pattern or scene on the rug or tapestry is not recorded on the film? Because if that is what you are saying, then it is false.

No image can be produced on a cloth from a negative.
No one said images had to be produced on cloth from negatives. There are countless means of producing images on cloths which do not involve negatives.

Today's science cannot duplicate the shroud.
Today's technological methods cannot reproduce its age or any of the properties which accumulated through ageing. A similar image could certainly be transferred to a similar cloth.

The bigger issue is how we cannot figure out how the image was 'put' on the cloth. It was not painted...
We do not know what the image looked like when new so we do not know that the original image was not painted using very conventional dyes which have faded and left a stain over the intervening few centuries.

You seem fixated on the means used to produce the image and keep insisting a) that we do not know how it was produced and b) that we cannot reproduce such a thing today, and conclude from this that a & b together imply divine intervention. While a is true (we do not know how it was produced), b is false (we can reproduce images on cloth), but even if b were true, your putative conclusion would not follow from the premises. There are numerous alternative explanations which do not require divine intervention.

Given that we do not possess any image of Jesus and no description of his appearance from the time of Jesus, there is no independently verifiable evidence that the image on the Shroud of Turin is a representation of Jesus at all. There is simply nothing of requisite and authentic antiquity to compare it with. It could have been an image of some crusader knight, or what the person who made the image imagined Jesus might have looked like (just as centuries of painters and icon makers have imagined what he looked like).

But even supposing that it is an image of Jesus, do we not know that any body was ever wrapped up in it or was intended to be wrapped up in it. The shroud could have been produced as an icon, as a thing to venerate (in the strict Christian sense of "veneration" ) and someone else later on made the mistake of supposing it to have been the shroud which actually covered Jesus's body (because someone later on did not know its origin and original purpose as an icon). Of course, this is no proof; I'm just pointing out that there are numerous explanations which are much more plausible than yours because they do not require belief in magic.

We don't know how the great pyramids were produced either (well, we know roughly, but not in detail), and we could not reproduce them today in twenty years (the time some sources claim them have been produced in). That doesn't mean Goddidit. It just means that ancient peoples were clever and dedicated.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Get that part? An anomalous area was sampled in 88?

Where in that report is the statement that it was obvious to the scientists taking the samples that the area was a patch and not part of the original?
It seems to me you made that part up. You are unfairly accusing scientists of bias and dishonesty with no evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where in that report is the statement that it was obvious to the scientists taking the samples that the area was a patch and not part of the original?
It seems to me you made that part up. You are unfairly accusing scientists of bias and dishonesty with no evidence whatsoever.

I am saying they sampled the repair mostly, they should have known the difference between an obvious repair which would have been from a later date and the original. They dated the repair.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I am saying they sampled the repair mostly, they should have known the difference between an obvious repair which would have been from a later date and the original. They dated the repair.

You are yet to give any actual evidence that the repair was obvious to the scientists collecting the samples. In fact, your reference suggests that it was far from obvious and even your reference is not convinced beyond all doubt it was a repair. You even quote them saying 'ample evidence' and not 'conclusive evidence'.
Your assumption that the scientists were dishonest is unfounded. Your refusal to address this is dishonest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are yet to give any actual evidence that the repair was obvious to the scientists collecting the samples. In fact, your reference suggests that it was far from obvious and even your reference is not convinced beyond all doubt it was a repair. You even quote them saying 'ample evidence' and not 'conclusive evidence'.
Your assumption that the scientists were dishonest is unfounded. Your refusal to address this is dishonest.

Not only did they realize it was a patch, they also analysed the fibers and found new fiber carefully woven into older fiber on the edges of the patches. That bit is in the article and there is an image showing the well woven repair thread. It looks obvious to me just looking at the photo the area they took samples from was a repair, you can't see the obvious difference between the little square in the lower left hand corner and the longer one in upper left?

If it is not a repair, can you explain to me what it was?