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.
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.
Originally posted by armageddonman
Show me please. What images from hiroshima have the same characteristics as the image on the shroud?
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.
Originally posted by SLP
There is no similarity whatsoever between the painted image on the shroud and the shadow images in Hiroshima.
Originally posted by Souljah:
And remember, he ACCEPTS the mummy wrappings as being untestable with C14, and that is WITHOUT a scientific journal.
The ONLY reason he won't with the Shroud, is because it will turn his world upside down.
I am arguing the micro-organisms angle, not the fire angle. I have given him expert opinions, but apparently they don't count. *shrug*
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
The 3D results are incompatible with a human head, but the ratio of depth to height and width is compatible with a relief carving.
Considering that mummies and Jesus have little burial customs in common, I dont see how disproving mummy dating disproves shroud dating.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ocean
The Shroud is probably fake, an elaborate hoax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?