Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mountainmike" data-source="post: 76856833" data-attributes="member: 392252"><p>If you knew anything of the history or science of the shroud (which is extremely unlikely given your previous posts utterly devoid of content) you would know it was Professor Edward Halls who having provably botched the dating - that said and I quote - in his normally unscientific manner in a press conference held by the british museum.</p><p></p><p>And I quote "some forger faked it up and flogged it"</p><p></p><p>So it is the date bodgers and British Museum who made the hypothesis.</p><p>It is up to them to prove it their hypothesis using medieaval methods. They cannot.</p><p></p><p>It is not medieval, not just sightings before that, but also forensic correspondence with a far older cloth. It is real crufixion pathology. The mark has only been created chemically by raditations. And such as Lazarro noted by UV tests that recreated the half tone, that it would have taken a singularity - billions of watts in a billion of a second to make it one go.</p><p> </p><p>The science supports authenticity, only Halls pseudoscience supports the idea of medieval origin.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mountainmike, post: 76856833, member: 392252"] If you knew anything of the history or science of the shroud (which is extremely unlikely given your previous posts utterly devoid of content) you would know it was Professor Edward Halls who having provably botched the dating - that said and I quote - in his normally unscientific manner in a press conference held by the british museum. And I quote "some forger faked it up and flogged it" So it is the date bodgers and British Museum who made the hypothesis. It is up to them to prove it their hypothesis using medieaval methods. They cannot. It is not medieval, not just sightings before that, but also forensic correspondence with a far older cloth. It is real crufixion pathology. The mark has only been created chemically by raditations. And such as Lazarro noted by UV tests that recreated the half tone, that it would have taken a singularity - billions of watts in a billion of a second to make it one go. The science supports authenticity, only Halls pseudoscience supports the idea of medieval origin. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is the Shroud of Turin Jesus' burial cloth?
Top
Bottom