It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

The radio carbon test practiced in 1988 by 3 different laboratories on some tiny samples taken from the bottom left corner of this so famous burial cloth failed to date it beyond the 13th century. However, new advances in research are showing not only the reasons for which this have happened, in spite of that the real age of the object could be much older, but also providing more secures methods that are giving entirely different results.

During the Last two weeks CNN has transmitted the TV series Finding Jesus.

This is the episode that they have devoted to two of the most famous relics that are attributed to Christ, the Saint Suddarium of Oviedo and the Holy Shroud of Turin.

www.youtube.com...

This film is very interesting, especially since it included one of the proofs that are contradicting the carbon dating:

The comparison of the blood stains of the two objects, that have been determined as coming from the same source, ( something really difficult to explain since there is enough historic record about the sudarium of Oviedo to at least date it in the first three centuries of Christendom)

Nevertheless, nothing is mentioned in this CNN film about other two crucial facts that were contradicting completely the radio carbon testing:

In reference to the mineralogical investigations, the dust vacuumed from the Shroud revealed traces of limestone and clay minerals showing high iron content that is consistent with dust present in Palestine.

Pollen analysis has revealed the permanence of the Shroud in the Middle East/Mediterranean regions with the presence of typical pol


I think the most important criticism to this documentary is that it didn't include at all the most recent scientific discoveries that reveal why the Carbon Dating practiced to the Shroud in the 1980s is wrong, based on three important hypothesis:

1) The presence of bio-plastic material covering the cloth, produced by microorganisms, a discovery of Garza-Valdes research, that add dramatically radio carbon to old objects reducing their apparent age.

2) The contamination with atoms of carbon coming from the exposition to great amounts of smog in the two or three fires that this relic have survived along History. ( Constantinople XIII century, North France XVI century and Turin XX century)

3) The repairs of different parts of the cloth that were performed by nuns along History, patching damaged areas of it, something that is visible at simple sight in some areas , and that introduced much younger fibers of spurious materials on it, like Cotton, that we all know is an American plant and so impossible to be available at the time of Christ in the old continent.

It is curious that this documentary that was so much advertised to contain inedit aspects of Christ life, included bizarre theories of forgery that are clearly inspired in absolutey none serious speculations look like Davinci Code, but nothing about the reasons for which Carbon dating is never used to date ancient mummies of Egypt, knowing that it could only produce wrong results.

Here what the CNN film didn't show to us.

www.youtube.com...

It is also found that the original composition of the corners of the cloth, were it was taken the sample for the radio carbon testing, was dramatically altered by posterior work to reinforce the material using fibres that are clearly not part of its original composition of linen,

That is enough explained in the following documentary:

www.youtube.com...

Now, Art History research have showed that there is enough evidence to say this object has been or it is exactly look like than a shroud that was once in Constantinople in the 12 century and even in Edessa around the VI century.

This defy completely the results of the carbon dating. This suggests that this is not a forgery of The Catholic church since the relic was then originally property of the Orthodox Bizantine Church that was taken away by French knights in the 4th crusade.

www.youtube.com...


In 1995 Dr Alan Adler, a Jewish Biochemistrist showed that the stains in the shroud are actual blood. Ultra-violet fluorescence photography showed that the shroud has no traces at all painting.

www.youtube.com...


Using robust Statistical analysis as an alternative methods of dating that are applicable to the Shroud, experiments done by the Italian Scientist Giolio Fanti, are dating the Shroud from 280 BC and the year 220 AD.

A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud, possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image.

To date the Shroud using alternative methods both Raman and FT-IR tests have been used to obtain two different chemical datings with the collaboration of professors Anna Tinti and Pietro Baraldi respectively of the universities of Bologna and Modena.

In addition a multiparametric mechanical method have been used at Padua University after the construction of a new ad-hoc machine capable to acquire the results of loading and unloading cycles of single linen fibers.

Using a petrographic microscope Fanti was able to separate Shroud linen fibers from dust particles vacuumed from Shroud; the fibers have been mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analizing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.

Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples.

After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level.

With Raman and FT-IR spectra the Italian team measured the concentration of particles of particular atomic groups of flax fibers. At the same confidence level, the first produced the date of 200 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 500 years, the latter that of the 300 BC with swings forward and back of 400 years.

Combining the two chemical methods with the mechanical one it results a mean date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at 95% confidence level that is compatible with the period in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.

Here the links that you can access to read more about this amazing discovering:


www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.usatoday.com...

shroudstory.com...

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...


Thanks for your attention,

your friend,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Excellent thread OP! I am glad they finally took the time to properly inspect and date the Shroud! The people who believe didn't need the verification, also the people who don't believe don't care, but it is nice this information comes out either way! Good find!



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
You do know that the Shroud of Turin depicts a man that is roughly 6 feet tall while people living in Jesus' time and locale averaged about 5 feet? Not to mention, the way the cloth depicts a person isn't indicative to how you would wrap a body.

By the way, your usatoday link is broken and your Huff Post link is from 2013. MY link is from Friday:
'Finding Jesus': Shroud of Turin Q&A


Vance Lipsey: Is there a better way to check the shroud than carbon dating? I've been told carbon dating is very inaccurate.

Goodacre: Actually, carbon dating is an excellent way to ascertain the date of an artifact. Many are disappointed, not surprisingly, that the shroud dated to between AD 1260 and 1390. I recall my own disappointment (but not surprise) on hearing the results back in 1988. But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th


Pay special attention to this question as it pertains to your thread (especially since you are citing this tv series as your evidence).


Cynthia Restivo: So I know the carbon dating was off, but wasn't it later shown that the piece of cloth used for the testing was a section that had been repaired after some fire damage or something? Which would explain why it dated different?

Goodacre: No, that's not been established. Those who defend the authenticity of the shroud often say the sample might have been taken from a part of the shroud that was repaired after it was damaged by fire in the 16th century. But this is special pleading. The scientists who took the sample knew what they were doing. Professor Christopher Ramsey noted that the unusual weave on the sample matched the weave on the rest of the shroud perfectly.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Haven't got the time to see all the links.
But the fact that it can be traced back to the time of Jesus, does not necessarily means that is Jesus. How can you explain the perfect symmetry of the figure in the shroud? Put some paint on your face then put a cloth over, you will see that the figure tend to be distorted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but the shroud looks more like a paint job. As for the Oviedo's one. That could be anything.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Now, being the Shroud of the time of Christ the second amazing fact is to explain how the image of the Man that it is allegedly Jesus was stamped on it.

We know that exhaustive checking have shown that there are no traces at all of painting, pencil or any kind of pigment in the cloth, this was confirmed using the most sophisticate techniques of spectral analysis and infrared fluorescent photography.

It is said that the image of Jesus can be explained as the result of intense radiation that once affected the cloth, the great question is what was its source? many see on this the evidence of a supernatural event that correspond to the Resurrection of Christ that has been a main claim of the the Christian tradition.

Dozens of tests have been conducted in 2010-2013 in the Laboratory of High Voltages of Padua University to explain the origin of the mysterious image.

If we want today to reproduce a quite similar image on a fabric in 1/2 scale, we require a voltage of about 300,000 V, but according to the american scientist Igor Bensen, a voltage of 50,000,000 would be necessary for the Shroud body image in a 1/1 scale.

Here the link where this information has been taken:

shroudstory.com...

Also there are researchers that speculate on the possibility that a flow of neutrons released by a powerful earthquake that we know occurred exactly on the Friday Jesus was executed can be the source of such radiation.

What they can't explain is why this is the only case of this kind of image known in History, and also the tremendous coincidence that this represents, an apparent natural so rare phenomenon occurring precisely to create a look like evidence of a supernatural event that was predicted by Christ himself to happen after his death.

Here the link about that theory:

www.foxnews.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Image in that "shroud" isn´t what 3D map is, it´s more like a 2D a painting or a "photograph". Imagine when you have painted body and you are wrapped in a cloth, when cloth is opened it doesn´t look anything like images of Turin does. Image in Turin cloth lacks depth.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Shroud of Turin - How it was formed


There is another side to this question. How do the shroud proponents think the image was formed? Do they have theories that are plausible and that would tend to conflict with the medieval date or human manufacture?

The following are the most popular theories:

Contact: The shroud, being in direct contact with the body, absorbed the oils and spices that were on the body. This theory can be discounted since oils and spices were not found on the shroud, also a cloth wrapped around the body would produce an expanded image of the body when flattened out. The image would also be blurred as the oils soaked into the cloth.

Vapour: The theory that the image was caused by the projection of body vapours. This can also be rejected since vapours don't travel in straight lines, but disperse, so once again the image would be blurred, which it isn't.

Flash photolysis: The most popular theory. The image was caused by a short burst of radiation caused by the resurrection. This too has been discredited because the fibres in the image areas show no additional degradation than the non-image areas. Radiation would cause visible damage to the fibres (when viewed microscopically) and this is not evident. Radiation would also cause the image to penetrate the cloth, unlike the superficial shroud image that is observed. This radiation is also said by some to have altered the C14 ratio, causing an erroneous carbon dating result. However to believe that the shroud received the exact amount of radiation required to alter the date of the cloth to the medieval date of its first documented appearance would be a remarkable coincidence. There is also no evidence that a body can be resurrected or that it emits radiation when doing so.

Leonardo: The shroud was created by Leonardo da Vinci who invented photography in secret. Although not supporting a 1st century date or connection with Jesus, this theory is often mentioned by some as the origin of the shroud. Proponents conveniently ignore the fact that the shroud had existed for a hundred years before Leonardo was even born (1452 CE).

Thus it is clear that shroud proponents have no viable theory of image formation that fits the characteristics of the shroud. When asked how the image formed, if they're honest, they should also answer, 'I don't know'. Of course they could answer that it was a miracle, but miracle in this context is just another word for mystery. And a mystery is something we don't understand, so we're back at not knowing.


Seriously, why do people grasp at straws to believe that this cloth is anything but a forgery?



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

If that was the case; why the same effect did not happen to others dead corpses around?
It would have been something common of that moment and an evidence of something supernatural.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

Dear Abednego,

There is no dye, art stains or painting at all in the Shroud, the analysis to find any trace of artist pigments was carried out using microscopes of great resolution.

A team of international credible experts rejected that hypothesis since the very first analysis on it done in 1978.

The Artist Isabel Piczek who works for the McCrone Research Institute and was invited to take part on the analysis devoted long time to explore all the possibilities of a forgery made by an Artist and she was able to discharge all of them with out leaving any possible space for reasonable doubt.

Here a link that explains better how this tests were done:

www.shroud.com...

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dear KrazyshOt, of course this is pretty serious material, it is actual scientific research carried out by well known professionals working in reputed Universities.

The reason for which many people think this is a forgery is primarily due to the mismatch of the Carbon Dating test that we now know has a lot of failures when it is applied on objects of the characteristics of this one in particular, and that I have already explained in my first post:

1) Contamination with atoms of carbon as a result of 3 fires in its History,

This discovery was found and extensively researcherd by John Jackson, a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs,

Please read :
www.wnd.com...


2) Bioplastic material created by bacteria living in the cloth, a phenomenon that has been also studied in ancient Egyptian mummies.

This discovery was made by a team led by Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, MD, adjunct professor of microbiology, and Stephen J. Mattingly, PhD, professor of microbiology of the University of Texas at San Antonio and it is right now supported by ulterior research carried out in University of Arizona.

Please read:
uthscsa.edu...

3) The repairs on the original linen cloth that were done by nuns in different occasions with much younger fibers of Cotton.

This finding was done by Professor Edward Hall, head of the Oxford lab, and by Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist and member of the STURP team that studied the Shroud in 1978.

Please read: www.shroud.com...


Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dear KrazyshOt,

The reason for which many people think this is a forgery is primarily due to the mismatch of the Carbon Dating test that we now know has a lot of failures when it is applied on objects of the characteristics of this one in particular, and that I have already explained in my first post:

1) Contamination with atoms of carbon as a result of 3 fires in its History,

This discovery was found and extensively researcherd by John Jackson, a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs,

Please read :
www.wnd.com...


World news daily? Seriously? That is your source? MY source from the first post came DIRECTLY from the CNN series that you mentioned in the OP which asserts that the Shroud remains considered a forgery. There is no new research to doubt this claim. It even debunks the fire claim that you are making above. Here, I'll repost it:


Cynthia Restivo: So I know the carbon dating was off, but wasn't it later shown that the piece of cloth used for the testing was a section that had been repaired after some fire damage or something? Which would explain why it dated different?

Goodacre: No, that's not been established. Those who defend the authenticity of the shroud often say the sample might have been taken from a part of the shroud that was repaired after it was damaged by fire in the 16th century. But this is special pleading. The scientists who took the sample knew what they were doing. Professor Christopher Ramsey noted that the unusual weave on the sample matched the weave on the rest of the shroud perfectly.



2) Bioplastic material created by bacteria living in the cloth, a phenomenon that has been also studied in ancient Egyptian mummies.

This discovery was made by a team led by Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, MD, adjunct professor of microbiology, and Stephen J. Mattingly, PhD, professor of microbiology of the University of Texas at San Antonio and it is right now supported by ulterior research carried out in University of Arizona.

Please read:
uthscsa.edu...


That link is from 1996...


3) The repairs on the original linen cloth that were done by nuns in different occasions with much younger fibers of Cotton.

This finding was done by Professor Edward Hall, head of the Oxford lab, and by Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist and member of the STURP team that studied the Shroud in 1978.

Please read: www.shroud.com...


Here is the conclusion from that paper you just linked:

An acceptable theory of why the Shroud dated between AD 1260-1390 must satisfactorily explain the precise, statistically-determined angular skewing of the dates corresponding with the individual laboratories, with reference to the location of the subsamples received. The traditional theories of generalized ionizing radiation, thermal effects, and bioplastic coating are incapable of meeting this latter requirement, as is the premise that the cloth itself, is, in toto, medieval. Our theory that a significant portion of the C-14 sample was, in actuality, a patch of 16th century material, meets all the requirements necessary to explain the results obtained by the laboratories.


Also, I have a follow up link:
Carbon Dating flaws and Conspiracies


The most recent 'explanation' by shroud proponents for the 'wrong' date is that the sample removed from the shroud for testing was a patch. There's no denying that the shroud has been patched during its existence, especially after the 1532 fire. In it's early days some people even deliberately tried to damage it to prove that the burial cloth of their Lord Jesus Christ was indestructible. They were wrong. There's also no denying that most of these patches stand out like squares on a patchwork quilt. The contention is that the sample returned a 14th century date because it was not part of the original shroud linen, but part of a medieval patch. The carbon dating was 100% accurate. The mistake was made in selecting the sample. While this is of course plausible, there are several reasons to doubt this version of events. For one the Vatican had already examined the shroud over many years. They knew the shroud's surface intimately. The STURP scientists had also conducted their extensive examination of the shroud. The Vatican had already cut a sample from the shroud for examination by a textile expert called Raes, and this piece was not revealed as a patch. This fact is important because the carbon dating sample was taken from exactly the same area. It was only after consultation between the Vatican, scientists and textile experts that the sample area was agreed on. Everyone was well aware that they had to avoid patched areas. None of these groups, least of all the Vatican, would have permitted the sample to be taken from an area that wasn't thought to be the original material. Some people have since said that the scientists were incompetent, that they rushed the sample taking or that they deliberately chose a patch, knowing it would give a medieval date. But as I've said, the scientists didn't make the choice alone, they didn't take the actual sample and the Vatican fully supported the choice. No one expressed any doubts at the time. Only after the 'wrong' date was arrived at and their theories on bio-contamination were debunked did shroud supporters start looking at the possibility of a flawed sample. They now insist that you can't tell it's a patch, even under a microscope, because the medieval repairers employed 'invisible reweaving'. Obviously this skill of 'invisible reweaving' was lost by the time of the 1532 fire repairs in 1534, which appear very amateurish. Shroud proponents' claim that medieval artisans were too stupid to make the shroud but at the same time had this unknown weaving skill that is impossible to achieve today. The only real support for the patch theory comes from the late Ray Rogers, a retired chemist and also director of chemical research for STURP. In his home laboratory he performed some controversial tests on two threads he claims came from the carbon dating sample, stating they differ from the rest of the shroud which he has dated between 1000 BC and 700 CE. He achieved his dating using an imprecise, unproven scientific method involving the measurements of carbohydrates such as vanillin. A method that was not calibrated and that used no control samples. Needless to say the scientific community do not support his results or methods. While it is possible that the sample was a patch, there is no convincing evidence to support or even suggest this.


The source of the forgery claim (especially your claim that said person was looking for fame) is irrelevant since all evidence points to that claim being the case.
edit on 11-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light


Really the only fully descriptive account we have about the linen cloths in which the body of Jesus was wrapped come from John's gospel:

John 20:5-7;"And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus'[a] head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

Notice that multiple cloths are described; one over the face and some over the body. Yet the Turin shroud is in one sheet. If we are to believe John's gospel then this really rules out the legitimacy of the Turin shroud. The only way that we can make the Turin shroud agree with what is described in the gospel is if somehow the sheets were stitched together as one and that does not appear to be the case.

Thousands of Jews and others were crucified by the Romans before and during the Jewish rebellion. It may well have been from a crucified man with some forged extras to make it all the more convincing.

I am much more inclined to John's description and because of these careful observations recorded in the gospel I find the Turin shroud to be suspect.
edit on 11-3-2015 by lonesomerimbaud because: spelling.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dear Kraxyshot,

Of course any of these hypothesis have pro and against arguments, and all together can explain the way the carbon dating is failing in to date correctly the shroud, but also any of them alone can be enough reason to be doubtful about those results, but that does not exclude that other findings can emerge around an object that we know by sure is extremely old, at least 800 years even if we want to believe in the carbon dating, since was not preserved adequately from pollution from the environment.

Now, none of the three laboratories of that carried out the carbon dating formulated any accusation of hoax, they just revealed their results on dating using that technique, that is the most they could do.

I find that to mention the source of the false and pretty irresponsible accusation of supposed Hoax around the Shroud, a kind of Da vinci code Conspiracy theory, it is pretty relevant in this discussion, because reveals how low is the level of the "research" done to try to build such a happy case.

The person that is responsible of the misinformation about the possibility that the Shroud might be an artist forgery was Joe Nickell, a Ph.D. in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore.

This person who is a popular literature author, not a scientist at all, working for skepticals media , and probably trying to gain fame at expense of the Shroud, formulated such false hypothesis without having any scientist background at all to support his irresponsible statements.


Here is his story concerning the shroud:

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

Joe Nickell perhaps could have academic authority to determine when a writing belongs to the person claims to be its author, but he does not have any scientific education to be involved in the kind of activity he has tried to perform along years, supposedly in to unmask hoaxes in connection with Science or Archaeology. He is using his rhetoric skills to gain money at expense of the skeptical and atheistic community in America.

He is more famous than in anything else for his work for a kind of sensationalist skeptical magazines community that is more in the level of popular literature and perhaps tabloids than in to any serious science research. However, he also has in his resume experience as a magician and illusionist by the way, so it is the clear example of a person that judge others from his own condition.

Mr Nickell has not academic credentials at all to show anything with objectivity neither in Science or in visual Arts, and besides that also a terrible lack of objectivity in his opportunistic "reports" for the simple reason that it is absolutely biased toward the area of atheistic fundamentalism.

Here it is his public profile:
en.wikipedia.org...

By the way the accusation of Hoax carried out by Joe Nickell , and that is not more valuable than a Nickel, was for years directed against the Roman Catholic Church.

What Mr Nickell systematically ignored, since it was not convenient for his argument, is that there is enough evidence to claim that this same burial cloth exhibited in Turin was previously in possession of the Bizantine Church for really long time, perhaps since the IV century.

Please read:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

shroud.com...

www.shroudofturinexhibition.com... 0website-3.pdf

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
This is what a cloth looks like when you lay it on somebody's face:


So I guess Jesus had one of the flattest faces you could imagine.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

I was going to post unwrapped 3D texture of the face to show how much facial skin we actually have.. Good find with that image !
Back then the world was different it was flat as a pancake so were peoples faces (öhöm)...



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Can you PLEASE explain to me what reason the Vatican would have giving the testing laboratories a contaminated sample to test? In other words, before the Shroud was dated, what reason would the Vatican have in snipping a piece of the Shroud that was a piece of patchwork added at a later date? The only reason I can see for that is if the Vatican already knew it was a forgery and didn't want the truth coming out, so they give a bad sample to give themselves an out when the testing comes back to prove the forgery. Except it has been shown that a bunch of people decided together WHICH part of the Shroud to test.

YOUR conspiracy is born from science denialism. That is all. Like I said, the source of the forgery claim is irrelevant because it is true.

ETA: Why is it that you mention this new CNN television series on Jesus but conveniently ignore the fact that the series sides with the standard "the Shroud is a forgery" claim?
edit on 11-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
To someone that believes, there will never be a convincing enough argument or amount of scientific evidence that it's a forgery. People want to believe its real, and they will come up with an endless stream of reasons why it is. The Pope himself could come out with documents detailing the creation of the forgery and people would still believe it's real.

Historically, artifacts like the shroud were very important at convincing people and recruiting/converting new followers. Most of these people couldn't read, and the church services were in Latin (which they couldn't understand). Having relics such as the shroud was something they could see and understand, and brought the idea of Christianity a little closer to their lives.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

Dear Lonesomerimbaud,

The answer to your question is very simple, there is no mystery on it at all. Basically you are ignoring the existence of two more cloths that were in contact with Jesus body during his very last hours of life:

The veil of Manopello, used to remove transpiration of his face at some point of his passion in his last walk across Jerusalem streets toward Golgotta, in the via dolorosa o via cruxis, and the Holy sudarium of Christ, the piece of cloth that was used just only to cover his head, when he was removed from the cross.

They are both preserved in Manopello Italy and in the Cathedral of Oviedo, in Spain.

There is the suspicion , not yet confirmed, that Manopello was possibly retouched by an artist over an original faded image and blood stains that were naturally stamped on it, but the Sudarium does not have any other thing that stains of blood and transpiration or other body fluids.

Here it is the history of those other two famous pieces of linen and silk clothes that are associated with Jesus Christ.

www.mysticsofthechurch.com...

holyfaceofmanoppello.blogspot.com...

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, Dear Krazyshot , the presence of the Question mark at the end of the supposed title of that documentary of CNN is the answer to one of your questions, it is not any statement, just a simple question, something that lives in the world of doubt and it is not proven at all.

Now, to select from where to take a sample of the shroud, given that the radio Carbon testing is a destructive test, it can be only carried by destroying the material was a pretty difficult one.

If this is the original burial Cloth of Christ it might be probably the most important archaeological object of History, apart of any religious value it can have, so to destroy any part of it is something really complicate to decide, that is the answer your other question.

I don't need to invoke any kind of conspiracy theories to see clearly the reasons in behind the facts that create so much worry to you, to be sincere.

My most honest advising is please read more carefully the latter scientific reports I have posted here of the new findings around the Shroud and read less about Da vinci novels, that can be a better way to help yourself to be a little more objective on the topic.

Even if the shroud could be proven, in a definite and conclusive way with 100% of confidence, that it is not the burial cloth of Christ , that does not mean necessarily a Forgery, since it could be originally created as an icon to ornate a religious space, in other words for mere esthetic purposes. This shows that the claims of Mr Joe Nickell are clearly malicious against religious beliefs, not objective at all.

We know that the nature of the radio Carbon testing never gives such level of confidence, it is nearby 94% with limits that varies in between +-30 to +- 61 years, in the case of the shroud. It comes to my attention that the relative variance on the date is really big from what one laboratory got to other: from 591 to 733 years old.

Let me clarify that I am talking these values from a site that is far to be friendly with the hypothesis that the Shroud might be authentic:

www.religioustolerance.org...


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 3/11/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

The gorkon ranged from 17.76 microbits to 37.8 microbits under orbon pressure when applied at 11:00 pm on the first Tuesday after Lent to a thread from Pope Pius's hem and compared to a thread taken from the upper right corner of the shroud 1/16th millimeter from another thread when the shroud was folded into the shape of a party napkin thus proving that dirt vacuumed from the shroud matched dirt vacuumed from the bottom of Benny Hinn's shoe. Therefore, this proves that the shroud dates to the time of Christ. Not.

Bottom line: you don't have squat. You are using a technique that involves throwing out so much junk no one notices that there's no substance. In one or two sentences, name the specific tests performed on specific dates by legitimate laboratories you name that produced scientific evidence proving that the shroud dates to the so-called time of Christ.
edit on 11-3-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join