Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
s0uljah, this is uncalled for. All Bear asks is for support for the claim that burns caused changes in the ratio of C-12 to C-14. All he wants from you (or VOW or someone else) is either evidence that the fire could have altered the carbon dating or an admission that that particular argument is wrong.

I am arguing the micro-organisms angle, not the fire angle.  I have given him expert opinions, but apparently they don't count. *shrug*

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

It appears that Fragment has produced some references dealing with this subject. It isn't clear right now what their conculsions are in the 14th versus 1st century issue. I think I'll have a look at them and get back to you. Thank you for treating this civilly and showing initiative.

Yep, fragment has apparently found what you wanted Rufus. Are you and Bear now willing to accept that the C14 dating is completely BOGUS in the case of ANCIENT LINENS!

P.S.

Sorry for yelling, etc, but this subject really gets under my skin. In the face of all evidence, people refuse to even consider it could be genuine, and at the same time, they think they are critical thinkers.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by armageddonman
 

Show me please. What images from hiroshima have the same characteristics as the image on the shroud?

Actually, I said similiar, I never said the "same" as the Shroud.  When the C14 issue is acknowledged by the critics, then I will be glad to move onto other issues.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Actually, I said similiar, I never said the "same" as the Shroud.  When the C14 issue is acknowledged by the critics, then I will be glad to move onto other issues.

There is no similarity whatsoever between the painted image on the shroud and the shadow images in Hiroshima.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by SLP
There is no similarity whatsoever between the painted image on the shroud and the shadow images in Hiroshima.

Painted?  *laugh*  Even Rufus admits it cant be a painting.

You CANT paint in 3D.  Nor has any paint been found on the Shroud.  The only thing that they once thought was paint, is also found in the part of the linen with NO image. 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Souljah:
And remember, he ACCEPTS the mummy wrappings as being untestable with C14, and that is WITHOUT a scientific journal.

Not true, souljah. I’ll grant that microorganisms can theoretically affect C-14 dating. I’ll grant that there probably are samples out there for which this is true. No where in this thread have I granted that mummy wrappings as a group can’t be accurately dated. I however have looked at the investigation of misdated linen from the paper FoD pointed us to and found there is no conclusive evidence for it. Considering that mummies and Jesus have little burial customs in common, I don’t see how disproving mummy dating disproves shroud dating.

The ONLY reason he won't with the Shroud, is because it will turn his world upside down.

Sure. My world will be so shaken up if the shroud wasn’t from the 14th century. Sorry, souljah your inability to show any evidence that calls the shroud dating into question is the reason why.

I am arguing the micro-organisms angle, not the fire angle. I have given him expert opinions, but apparently they don't count. *shrug*

What expert opinions? The unpublished work of a pediatrician with cloth that might have come from the shroud, but no one knows. Do you want a gold star for that?

Yep, fragment has apparently found what you wanted Rufus. Are you and Bear now willing to accept that the C14 dating is completely BOGUS in the case of ANCIENT LINENS!

He pointed us to a paper which addresses the issue. I actually took the time to read it before I said whether it proved this or not. (Unlike you.) It, however, shows no such thing as I will demonstrate below.

The paper by Gove et al, investigates the claims whether microorganisms can affect linen dating. However, they were unable to conclude anything since their chose a bad mummy to test it on. Here are a couple quotes from the paper.

About the fire:
If the organic contamination occurred as a result of the 1532 fire and if the shroud really dated to the first century, 79% of the carbon in the linen would have to come from the fire and thus dated to the year 1532 and only 21% from the shroud itself for the combination to produce the historic date of 1357 AD.

About their mummy:
Hence, on is forced to conclude that the ibis was not a propitious choice of mummy in which to compare cloth wrappings and bone collagen radiocarbon content specifically because their diet probably included food whose carbon content was aquatic in origin.

Their final statements:
Meanwhile, although the results of the present measurements include the possibility that the bioplastic coating observed on the cloth fibers of the wrappings of the ibis cause it to yield a radiocarbon age several hundred years younger than its true age, they are far from definitive. It would be premature to draw any conclusions about the true age of the Turin Shroud from these measurements.

Sorry, but Gove et al. does not support your position.

Originally posted by Souljah:
Sorry for yelling, etc, but this subject really gets under my skin. In the face of all evidence, people refuse to even consider it could be genuine, and at the same time, they think they are critical thinkers.

You might want to take your foot out of your mouth.

Painted? *laugh* Even Rufus admits it cant be a painting.

You CANT paint in 3D. Nor has any paint been found on the Shroud. The only thing that they once thought was paint, is also found in the part of the linen with NO image.

Where do you get that? I never said it wasn’t a painting. You can definitely paint 3D if you put a 3D image under your canvas. (Like in grade school when you did 3D rubbings of grave stones.) The 3D results are incompatible with a human head, but the ratio of depth to height and width is compatible with a relief carving.

BTW: I’m still waiting for you to show how it is a radiation burn and how radiation burns produce 3d images.

 

[Starscream]

Sorry for yelling, etc, but this subject really gets under my skin. In the face of all evidence, people refuse to even consider it could be genuine, and at the same time, they think they are critical thinkers.

Is it okay to yell as long as you feel annoyed?  As long as something gets under your skin?

s0uljah, please brief us on the evidence that you have provided for us.  I'm particulary interested in the following:

1)  What proof do we have the the shroud is 2000 years old?

2)  Passing that, what proof do we have that the shroud is not an elaborate hoax?  (You do realize that religious hoaxs do exist, right?)

3)  Passing that, what proof do we have that the shroud was used by Jesus Christ and not some other poor fellow?

I think it is unfair for you to succumb to personal attacks and tell the viewers here what you think of our inability (or whatever) to hear your words.  We are here, we are listening, and we'd like nothing more than to see you prove your point.  Yelling at us is only going to make you appear like a fanatic.  I know you don't want to give us that impression, so chill.

Most of us have listened to fantastic tales most of our lives from people with contradicting beliefs.  We've even been threatened with cruel punishment for failing to buy into every fancy-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] story we happen to hear.  As a result, we require hard proof before we all go ape-nuts over every "miraculous" discovery that religious fanatics would wish us to believe (not that you are a fanatic, mind you).

Don't take it personal.  I think it is very possible that intelligent life is on another planet - but still - I refuse to believe in UFO's until I see hard proof of them.

Put the personal stuff aside and provide your evidence.  I think you'll find it is hardly conclusive.

 

[Underdog]

Originally posted by eldermike
This thread should be closed if our rules are to be respected. The thread is now about each other and the subject is lost in the need to prove our superior position.

But, it's an interesting topic and it will just show up with another title. I am going to overlook the history on this thread and I ask you all to do the same. I have no opinion on this subject one way or the other. (in case anyone was wondering)

I had no idea that folks had such strong feelings about this issue. But, those feelings should also be respected. And, the ones holding the strong feelings should also respect the views of the ones that don't hold those feelings.

let us stick to the subject and respect each others opinions.
If we can't do that then it will be closed.

Thanks

Finally, a moderator who knows the difference between heated debate, and mud-slinging.

I was shocked by another moderator's participation in the mud-slinging.

 

[npetreley]

Obviously these will not be acceptable to Rufus and some others, but just FYI to those interested:

http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/~tttbbs/EPN-2/Articles/Articles-Shrd/authen-6.html

http://www.shroudstory.com/c14.htm

http://www.gizapyramid.com/LECTURE-SHROUD4.htm



Apologies for any duplications. This is a long thread, so I didn't check all posts.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

1) What proof do we have the the shroud is 2000 years old?

The sole piece of evidence that it is from the 1300's is the C14 tests, which are highly questionable. All the other evidence, the pollen, fibers, type of linen, point to a first century Jerusleum origin.

2) Passing that, what proof do we have that the shroud is not an elaborate hoax? (You do realize that religious hoaxs do exist, right?)

I have listed quite a number of things a forger would have to accomplish for it to be a hoax, and it is pretty far fetched. VOW mentioned some as well.

3) Passing that, what proof do we have that the shroud was used by Jesus Christ and not some other poor fellow?

The wounds on the body match perfectly to those suffered by Jesus Christ.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The 3D results are incompatible with a human head, but the ratio of depth to height and width is compatible with a relief carving.

Please provide a peer reviewed scientific journal stating this "fact," else admit it is your layman's opinion.

Considering that mummies and Jesus have little burial customs in common, I don’t see how disproving mummy dating disproves shroud dating.

Burial customs? That has nothing to do with it. We are talking about ancient linens not being dated accurately with C14.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

As for the Fire angle...

This is from Nick's link:

In the 1532 fire at Chambery, France, the Shroud was subjected to temperatures over 900 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt its silver container. At these temperatures isotopic ion exchange takes place. Additional carbon 14 from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, steam from the water thrown onto the Shroud to douse the fire, smoke, newer carbon from the Shrouds outer protective wrapping and contaminants on the fabric itself could have reacted chemically with the structure of the flax fibers.

Dr. Dmitri A. Kouznetsov and and Andrey Ivanov of the Biopolymer Laboratory in Moscow simulated the characteristics of the 1532 fire. In an article in the Journal of Archaeological Science in January of 1996, Dr. Kouznetsov reports that a chemical modification of the textile cellulose results in a "newer" reading for ancient linen cloth by as much as 1000 years. Dr. John Jackson, one of the STURP scientists, stated that his research tends to confirm the work of the two Russians.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Also from that link, reference to the linens again...

Dr. Kouznetsov has also theorized that linen may not be so easy to test with radiocarbon methods. Flax, the plant from which linen is made, redistributes its carbon components with a greater proportion of the carbon-14 isotope being in the cellulose part of the flax plant. This natural process, known as biological fractionation of carbon isotopes, was not considered in the 1988 testing.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I have listed quite a number of things a forger would have to accomplish for it to be a hoax, and it is pretty far fetched. VOW mentioned some as well.

Getting the correct images of the coins would have been an amazing feat, IMO. My memory may fail me on this, but I think I recall reading somewhere that info about these coins was virtually nil at the time of the supposed forgery.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by npetreley
Getting the correct images of the coins would have been an amazing feat, IMO. My memory may fail me on this, but I think I recall reading somewhere that info about these coins was virtually nil at the time of the supposed forgery.

You are correct sir...

Not to mention the pollens and flowers indigenous to the region of Jesus burial that are embedded in the linen fibers. The same genius forger that knew about the coins also took the fake Shroud to that area in the Middle East and rolled the Shroud around in the dirt, knowing full well that we would test for it 700 years later....yep

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Oh, and lets not forget the dirt particles around the feet only, since the victim of the torture walked barefoot. The forger thought of THAT as well.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Rufus-

You have journals that call the C14 into question, although the authors dont outright conclude that the tests are worthless.

So, the SOLE piece of evidence you have that its a fake it shady at best.

 

[npetreley]

Too bad this forger only used his/her knowledge to create the shroud and didn't share the results of his/her research about 1st century Israel with the rest of the world. It would have saved us a lot of trouble re-discovering these things over the next hundreds of years.

 

[ocean]

The Shroud is probably fake, an elaborate hoax.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ocean
The Shroud is probably fake, an elaborate hoax.

Shoot, and I was convinced it was real until you weighed in.