More evidence the shroud of Turin is ancient - around 2000 years old.

[Mountainmike]

You don't help yourself by just doubling down. You'd do better to admit that, while the RC date is questionable, it has not been shown to be incorrect. It is your strident claims of misconduct and absolute rebuttal of evidence which make you no better than a cheap newspaper. You decry others' lack of honesty, then rely on a less than honest tirade to try to make a point.

And yet you cannot answer a single point I made.

If you read the daters correspondence you will be left in no doubt as to their lack of good faith.


Let us take the two possible conclusions from fiddled and unfiddled data.

1/ The daters per nature article (which is now provably false) : that dates are homogeneous across samples. So mediaeval date is valid. (even that ignores the fact even the article data contained discrepancies, so soemthing was wrong)
The point is the world could believe it, or so it thought.

2/ Dates per lab books: (ie factual) has only one of two possible subchoices

2a AMS method is not good enough as proven by Burleigh and Tite (the daters themselves!!!_ previously or,

2b dates are not homogeneous. So no unique date possible.
There is a C14 therefore date gradient across the cloth, which is also consistent with a physical variation (ie made of varying stuff, consistent with adlers findings on tape samples)
Either way up, nobody can say what the date of the rest of the shroud is. A disaster for dater PR.

The two stories 1 and 2 are almost opposites. And they relied on data manipulation which cannot be done accidentally.

If it was honest, why did they prevent anyone accessing logbooks?
Bearing in mind that 2a would have wrecked the reputation of AMS in perpetuity, when promotion of AMS and killing of Harwell is clearly Gove/ Halls motive if you read what they write. The AMS daters could not afford 2a as an interpretation. Even 2b ruined daters credibilty since they said it would be definiteve. It was not.

Answer the question - If it was honest, why did they prevent anyone accessing logbooks?

The reality is you dismiss what I say because of a priori materialism and belief not science, and you do not like my conclusion from facts.

Whatever the case - the WAXs FTIR and particularly Lignin dating have far less flaws than RC, and the physical evidence that the shroud sample is made of other stuff is plenty good enough to discount the date.

I have never worked out why materialist/atheist/sceptics have gone to such lenghts to defend an indefensible RC date. The shroud itself does not threaten your world view.

Hypothesis and conjecture on HOW it was made just might. Since body centric radiation is the only hypothesis that gets even close. But the shroud itself is simply confirmation of recorded history. Why get stressed about it?

Forensic correspondence with the sudarium disproves the shroud date. You are hanging on to a loser.

 

[Lulav]

Decades ago before the new tests had been done I'd read up about the shroud. The 'evidence' that brought me to believe it was the real thing was the overwhelming evidence of the nearly invisible. That is the pollen that was found on it. That really can't be duplicated or faked.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet you cannot answer a single point I made.

You don't make any points, you make assertions. If you want to make a point you need to provide support for your claims, not just whinge that others haven't read every book you claim contains evidence

 

[Mountainmike]

Decades ago before the new tests had been done I'd read up about the shroud. The 'evidence' that brought me to believe it was the real thing was the overwhelming evidence of the nearly invisible. That is the pollen that was found on it. That really can't be duplicated or faked.

Interesting from more recent times.
1/ the undeniable forensic correspondence with the much older sudarium (the facecloth from the tomb) show the two cloths almost certainly covered the same victim and from both of those:
2/ the mitochondrial DNA surveys which also include plant life and pollen show the sudarium is in essence middle eastern. The shroud is consistent with that. But clearly shows mid european pollens too.

Traces of limestone on the nose of the shroud, the feet of the shroud, and the sudarium are all consistent with jerusalem aragonite.

Much of the forensics of the shroud and sudarium (like serum marks) were invisible to a mediaeval forger.

Why would a medieval forger bother to fake what he cannot see, knowing he could never get caught, in anticipation of year 2000 forensic science?

Indeed since the blood and crucifixions pathology are real, and the mediaeval penalty for a murderer wanting to fake the shroud was unthinkable... they could be hung drawn and quartered! So why did a forger use a real victim?

The fake or medieaval hypothesis does not make sense at all. Except to a priori sceptics!

 

[Mountainmike]

You don't make any points, you make assertions. If you want to make a point you need to provide support for your claims, not just whinge that others haven't read every book you claim contains evidence

I list plenty. You can look them up or not. Your choice.
Just dont pretend to know about the shroud RC dating or the chemistry of that area of the sample until AFTER you have studied it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I list plenty. You can look them up or not. Your choice.
Just dont pretend to know about the shroud RC dating or the chemistry of that area of the sample until AFTER you have studied it.

I have studied it. I have also read the criticisms. That's why I'm pointing out your histrionics - none of the criticisms say the date is untenable, they just say there are questions to answer. Perhaps you should spend tine reading and understanding them so you may better represent them in future.

 

[Lulav]

From one of the Photographers ( a Jewish man at that! )

Posted just 5 months ago

 

[Mountainmike]

- none of the criticisms say the date is untenable, they just say there are questions to answer.

Removing the pure insult from what you said, if the above is what you want to believe, keep believing it.

The science disagrees with you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Removing the pure insult from what you said, if the above is what you want to believe, keep believing it.

The science disagrees with you.

No, just the 'sindonologists'.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Removing the pure insult from what you said, if the above is what you want to believe, keep believing it.

The science disagrees with you.

Citation please.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, just the 'sindonologists'.

Sindonologists?
As though those who actually KNOW something about the cloth have a different opinion, to those on a forum like this, they certainly do!
The idea that "sindonlogists" have bias is an invention of faith materialists.

The scientists are of all faiths and none.

in the world of Science ( not scientism prevalent on this forum)

Five separate independent groups have confirmed there is intrinsic cotton in the raes area.
there is no intrinsic cotton in the rest of the shroud, and the linen is of different structure . QED
indeed the raes and sample area are proven spectrographically as different structure even pre RC test!

I bet you cannot even name the groups! So illinformed are you
I do not say that to demean: I say it to show just how big the mass of evidence is that demolishes the RC date.

The RC test was a botch by incompetents , a triumph of hubris over competence, on an area of cloth unrelated to the rest of the shroud, using equipment that failed validation, and gave inhomogenous ( ie irrelevant) results. The fiddled figures are an outlier compared to all other evidence. Even if performed correctly, RC is only indicative not definitive. This was not performed correctly. All warning flags were ignored.

This botched RC date is an irrelevance . Nobody except the illinformed and apriori faith based sceptics still believe it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sindonologists?
As though those who actually KNOW something about the cloth have a different opinion, to those on a forum like this, they certainly do!
The idea that "sindonlogists" have bias is an invention of faith materialists.

The scientists are of all faiths and none.

in the world of Science ( not scientism prevalent on this forum)

Five separate independent groups have confirmed there is intrinsic cotton in the raes area.
there is no intrinsic cotton in the rest of the shroud, and the linen is of different structure . QED
indeed the raes and sample area are proven spectrographically as different structure even pre RC test!

I bet you cannot even name the groups! So illinformed are you
I do not say that to demean: I say it to show just how big the mass of evidence is that demolishes the RC date.

The RC test was a botch by incompetents , a triumph of hubris over competence, on an area of cloth unrelated to the rest of the shroud, using equipment that failed validation, and gave inhomogenous ( ie irrelevant) results. The fiddled figures are an outlier compared to all other evidence. Even if performed correctly, RC is only indicative not definitive. This was not performed correctly. All warning flags were ignored.

This botched RC date is an irrelevance . Nobody except the illinformed and apriori faith based sceptics still believe it.

A tirade of unsupported (false) assertions does not make your position any stronger. You continue to exagerate the criticisms made of the RC date and then add your own invective.

 

[Mountainmike]

A tirade of unsupported (false) assertions does not make your position any stronger. You continue to exagerate the criticisms made of the RC date and then add your own invective.

Meanwhile in the land of science there are five different independent groups several in the last decade who confirm intrinsic cotton in the Raes and sample area scuppering forever the idea that the sample was representative of the shroud.. That scuppers the RC date completely.
I have named at least two of the parties who did them on this forum before. It is pointless. You never read.

Your shroud research is so "thorough" you cannot even name one, or a valid objection to any of them.
So You keep "believing" in the RC date.
I will study/ believe the shroud science instead.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Meanwhile in the land of science there are five different independent groups several in the last decade who confirm intrinsic cotton in the Raes and sample area scuppering forever the idea that the sample was representative of the shroud.. That scuppers the RC date completely.
I have named at least two of the parties who did them on this forum before. It is pointless. You never read.

Your shroud research is so "thorough" you cannot even name one, or a valid objection to any of them.
So You keep "believing" in the RC date.
I will study/ believe the shroud science instead.

Funny how the sample is considered to have been taken from the main cloth, not a repair, yet you insist it is not representative of the shroud.

 

[Lulav]

Anyone watch the video I posted?

 

[Lost4words]

I watched a video by the photographer on the original examination of the Shroud.

He is convinced it is the real Shroud of Jesus! This, is after many years of research and investigating etc etc...

 

[Lost4words]

Funny how the sample is considered to have been taken from the main cloth, not a repair, yet you insist it is not representative of the shroud.

The sample was indeed taken from the repair.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The sample was indeed taken from the repair.

Of course it was. The repair which nobody can find but sindonologists assert exists.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course it was. The repair which nobody can find but sindologists assert exists.

The repair is so invisible, it's evidence of another miracle!

 

[Lost4words]

The repair is so invisible, it's evidence of another miracle!

The repair was done by a very unique technique...this has been documented.