(September 13, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't know enough about St. Peter's bones to opine.  But anyone who bothers to look at the proportions of the body depicted on the shroud of Turin knows it's a fake.  No real person has those proportions, but art made at the time it first surfaced did.  Surely if Jesus were monstrously out of proportion to the extent of being a freak of nature, someone would have mentioned it?  It's not even as if it's a genetic defect commonly found or recognized it's not.  No one has those proportions.  It's as if the shroud first came to light ten or fifteen years ago in Japan and had the huge eyes and bodily proportions of anime cartoons.

Oh---- Welcome back Randy.

(September 13, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 13, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't know enough about St. Peter's bones to opine.  But anyone who bothers to look at the proportions of the body depicted on the shroud of Turin knows it's a fake.  No real person has those proportions, but art made at the time it first surfaced did.  Surely if Jesus were monstrously out of proportion to the extent of being a freak of nature, someone would have mentioned it?  It's not even as if it's a genetic defect commonly found or recognized it's not.  No one has those proportions.  It's as if the shroud first came to light ten or fifteen years ago in Japan and had the huge eyes and bodily proportions of anime cartoons.

Oh---- Welcome back Randy.

You have raised this objection on more than one occasion...what proportions do you find to be problematic, Jenny?

I have a 35" sleeve, and I can position my hands as shown on the shroud WITHOUT dislocating my shoulders as would have happened to Jesus during the hours he spent on the cross.

Do you have medical evidence to suggest that the body is somehow out of proportion? If so, who did the research?

In an exhaustive article on the shroud, archaeologist William Meacham cited 12 studies confirming the physiological accuracy of the Shroud. Meacham wrote:

"Scientific scrutiny of the Shroud image began in 1900 at the Sorbonne. Under the direction of Yves Delage, professor of comparative anatomy, a study was undertaken of the physiology and pathology of the apparent body imprint and of the possible manner of its formation. The image was found to be anatomically flawless down to minor details: the characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood flows provided conclusive evidence to the anatomists that the image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a corpse, not painted onto the cloth or scorched thereon by a hot statue (two of the current theories). On this point all medical opinion since the time of Delage has been unanimous (notably Hynek 1936; Vignon 1939; Moedder 1949; Caselli 1950; La Cava 1953; Sava 1957; Judica-Cordiglia 1961; Barbet 1963 ; Bucklin 1970; Willis, in Wilson 1978; Cameron 1978; Zugibe, in Murphy 1981). This line of evidence is of great importance in the question of authenticity and is briefly reviewed below.

"The body was that of an adult male, nude, with beard, mustache, and long hair falling to the shoulders and drawn at the back into a pigtail. Height is estimated at between 5 ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. (175-180 cm), weight at 165-180 lb. (75-81 kg), and age at 30 to 45 years. Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic. The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects."

Source:

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:
An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology
by William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
Published by the University of Chicago Press
Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

(September 13, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(September 13, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

You have raised this objection on more than one occasion...what proportions do you find to be problematic, Jenny?

I have a 35" sleeve, and I can position my hands as shown on the shroud WITHOUT dislocating my shoulders as would have happened to Jesus during the hours he spent on the cross.

Do you have medical evidence to suggest that the body is somehow out of proportion? If so, who did the research?

In an exhaustive article on the shroud, archaeologist William Meacham cited 12 studies confirming the physiological accuracy of the Shroud. Meacham wrote:

"Scientific scrutiny of the Shroud image began in 1900 at the Sorbonne. Under the direction of Yves Delage, professor of comparative anatomy, a study was undertaken of the physiology and pathology of the apparent body imprint and of the possible manner of its formation. The image was found to be anatomically flawless down to minor details: the characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood flows provided conclusive evidence to the anatomists that the image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a corpse, not painted onto the cloth or scorched thereon by a hot statue (two of the current theories). On this point all medical opinion since the time of Delage has been unanimous (notably Hynek 1936; Vignon 1939; Moedder 1949; Caselli 1950; La Cava 1953; Sava 1957; Judica-Cordiglia 1961; Barbet 1963 ; Bucklin 1970; Willis, in Wilson 1978; Cameron 1978; Zugibe, in Murphy 1981). This line of evidence is of great importance in the question of authenticity and is briefly reviewed below.

"The body was that of an adult male, nude, with beard, mustache, and long hair falling to the shoulders and drawn at the back into a pigtail. Height is estimated at between 5 ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. (175-180 cm), weight at 165-180 lb. (75-81 kg), and age at 30 to 45 years. Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic. The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects."

Source:

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:
An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology
by William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
Published by the University of Chicago Press
Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

If you regularly draw the human body (and I do) the problems are obvious.  Here is a summary of some of those problems:  The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud — Because If It's Real the Brain of Jesus Was the Size of a Protohuman's!  Here are a few excerpts:

First it is ridiculously tall:

Quote:The shroud is 4.4 m (14 ft) long (at least before the 2002 restoration). The total height of the shroud figure cannot be directly measured from the front view because the feet are indistinct and their posture uncertain, but it is not possible for the figure to be significantly under 1830 mm (6 ft) because the lower legs would then be overly short relative to the upper legs and to the body as a whole. The rear view shows both the top of the head and the heels, and provides a height a little over 1860 mm (6 ft 1 in). The proportions of the trunks and legs are normal and represent a fit person whose muscles are well, but not excessively, developed, and who lacks excess body fat. Body mass for a person of this height and form should be in the area of 75-80 kg (165-175 lbs). The considerable height of the shroud figure is a significant problem because it is tall even by modern First-World standards, and it is well above the norm for a person living in the Roman-occupied Middle East. If Jesus were of these dimensions he would have towered over most of those around him and would have been easily identified by those searching for the dissident, yet there is no mention of this feature in the testaments.

It has a really abnormally sized head for it's overly long body:

Quote:That the shroud head is too small is visually obvious when it is compared to normally proportioned humans on the same scale. The dimensions of the small and narrow head of the shroud are about nine-tenths the male norm. This may not sound like much, but because of the square-cube law modest differences in dimensions result in big changes in volume, so the capacity of the cranium was at least 30 percent below expectations.

That is a common beginning artist misdrawing even today:

Quote:A standard convention of Gothic art was too elongate the body relative to the head, there are innumerable examples of the distortion which was commonly applied to images of Jesus. Body elongation is a means of increasing the impressive majesty of the person being represented. In contrast an overly large head looks juvenile. This illusion was used by Leonardo in his classic but not accurate Ideal Man, and is still exploited in comic book super heroes.

But the real problem to an artist's eye is a common problem among beginning portrait artists.  The forehead is way too short.  This is a mistake many new artists make.  We just can't believe how long the forehead is in comparison to the rest of the face (your eyes are actually in the middle not toward the top of your face check it out) and the artist who produced the shroud makes this mistake.

Quote:In normal humans the head from the top to the eyebrows is over a third to over 40 percent of total head height, or 80 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in). In the shroud figure the top of the cranium is about one forth overall head height, around 60 mm (2.5 in). Having done some work in the evolution of brain size, some calculations were warranted. In modern adult male humans the volume of the brain averages 1250 cc with a minimum of 1050 cc (Allen J et al., 2002 Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol 118:341-358). This is why adult male heads are genetically forced to be so large, especially above the face; they have to be in order to accommodate such big brains.

Didn't carbon dating prove that the shroud was from around the 1300s? Which would have been about 1300 years too late. Someone even duplicated the efforts using only material that would have been available at the time (much unlike a certain other project of building the ark.)

I'm not sure why people try to defend the shroud so strongly. If it's not legitimately the burial cloth, wouldn't you want to know? Or would you rather believe it is, when it isn't?

Chemical analysis established that the S of T originated from the Middle Ages. When those test results are overturned by new data that fits into the timeline in which Jesus lived, it will deserve further consideration by serious people.

Israeli archaeologist, Shimon Gibson, found an actual first century shroud in an actual tomb in Jerusalem.  Oddly, it is consistent with the bible bullshit which noted separate wrappings and not one big piece of cloth.

Of course, all that demonstrates is that whoever wrote the so-called gospel of john knew more about jewish burial procedures than 13th century jackasses in France.  Not that any of it matters one way or the other.

(September 13, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

---

(September 13, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

You have raised this objection on more than one occasion...what proportions do you find to be problematic, Jenny?

I have a 35" sleeve, and I can position my hands as shown on the shroud WITHOUT dislocating my shoulders as would have happened to Jesus during the hours he spent on the cross.

Do you have medical evidence to suggest that the body is somehow out of proportion? If so, who did the research?

In an exhaustive article on the shroud, archaeologist William Meacham cited 12 studies confirming the physiological accuracy of the Shroud. Meacham wrote:

"Scientific scrutiny of the Shroud image began in 1900 at the Sorbonne. Under the direction of Yves Delage, professor of comparative anatomy, a study was undertaken of the physiology and pathology of the apparent body imprint and of the possible manner of its formation. The image was found to be anatomically flawless down to minor details: the characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood flows provided conclusive evidence to the anatomists that the image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a corpse, not painted onto the cloth or scorched thereon by a hot statue (two of the current theories). On this point all medical opinion since the time of Delage has been unanimous (notably Hynek 1936; Vignon 1939; Moedder 1949; Caselli 1950; La Cava 1953; Sava 1957; Judica-Cordiglia 1961; Barbet 1963 ; Bucklin 1970; Willis, in Wilson 1978; Cameron 1978; Zugibe, in Murphy 1981). This line of evidence is of great importance in the question of authenticity and is briefly reviewed below.

"The body was that of an adult male, nude, with beard, mustache, and long hair falling to the shoulders and drawn at the back into a pigtail. Height is estimated at between 5 ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. (175-180 cm), weight at 165-180 lb. (75-81 kg), and age at 30 to 45 years. Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic. The body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable defects."

Source:

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:
An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology
by William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N° 3 - (June 1983)
Published by the University of Chicago Press
Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

---

You've convinced me.

Yes can you imagine the "coincidence" that popes sat for centuries on St. Peter's face and that they just happen to find his bones there? Coincidence - no way, it's the work of the male gay deity.

Seriously the Shroud of Turin was proved to be fake by Carbon dating as produced in medieval times, and its image of Jesus has been reproduced by an Italian chemist using materials available in medieval Europe. Nevertheless popes endorse it, including "everyone's favorite asshole" Pope Francis.

But that's what you get with those people that want to believe without evidence. Just remember 2012 when, a statue of Jesus in Mumbai began oozing water from its feet. It was proclaimed “holy water,” and many Chatolics started drinking it and was seen as a miracle, and hundreds of Catholics flocked to worship the image. Then the Indian rationalist Sanal Edamaruku discovered that the “miracle” was due to faulty plumbing: blocked drainage of a nearby toilet caused the statue to wick fecal emerging at Jesus’s feet. Which only outraged Catholic Church causing Edamaruku to be indicted for violating Indian laws against hurting religious sentiments. He fled the country to avoid jail, a refugee from superstition!!

(September 13, 2015 at 11:58 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Didn't carbon dating prove that the shroud was from around the 1300s?  Which would have been about 1300 years too late.  Someone even duplicated the efforts using only material that would have been available at the time (much unlike a certain other project of building the ark.)  

I'm not sure why people try to defend the shroud so strongly.  If it's not legitimately the burial cloth, wouldn't you want to know?  Or would you rather believe it is, when it isn't?

(September 14, 2015 at 12:06 am)Nestor Wrote: Chemical analysis established that the S of T originated from the Middle Ages. When those test results are overturned by new data that fits into the timeline in which Jesus lived, it will deserve further consideration by serious people.

(September 14, 2015 at 4:39 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Seriously the Shroud of Turin was proved to be fake by Carbon dating as produced in medieval times, and its image of Jesus has been reproduced by an Italian chemist using materials available in medieval Europe.

The 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud was invalidated by flawed sampling. Specifically, the samples were taken from patches sewn onto the original linen and from the edges of the cloth that were frequently handled during its various expositions.

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 4:25 p.m. EDT March 30, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world...y/2038295/

The Story Behind The Shroud of Turin And the Carbon Dating Debacle
http://shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html


But to be fair to Fake Messiah, let's try to stay focused on the OP.

Quote: According to Alberto Carpinteri, from the Politecnico di Torino in Italy, a massive earthquake, measuring 8.2 on the Richter Scale, in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem (soon after the time of the Crucifixion) could have led to the release of free neutrons, attaching to other atoms, to form carbon isotopes, a process called neutron radiation. The research was published in the journal Meccanica...

Carpinteri says he is able to produce these neutron emissions by compressing brittle pieces of rock. This is known as a “piezonuclear fission reaction” and the neutron emission is caused by the fission, splitting, of iron atoms, but the reaction does not emit gamma rays or nuclear waste, notes Science Insider.

The Jerusalem earthquake could have created neutron emissions that either interacted with the Shroud of Turin to produce the image or increased the carbon-14 isotope level. Carpinteri said in a statement, “We believe it is possible that neutron emissions by earthquakes could have induced the image formation on the Shroud’s linen fibers, through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei, and could also have caused a wrong radiocarbon dating.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/shroud-turin-wron...sy-1554922

I think that illustrates the mental loops people will jump through to keep their illusory hopes alive.

@Randy
Regarding the more recent testing you cite, which claims that the shroud dates to 33 BC +/- 250 years, I haven't been able to find any sources that corroborate those - and, it should be added, they were revealed in a book that the researcher himself produced. Self-promotion much? At the very least, you should be skeptical.