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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said there were no pigments at all found on the shroud?

I could quote you if your memory fails you.


originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you even READ that article/????

The students used pigment. There have been NO pigments found on the shroud of Turin...lol

Fail again...

Jaden



Have you read the accompanying link I provided?
edit on 13-3-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden




There were ZERO pigments found on the shroud...


What's blood? There's supposedly blood on the shroud. That's pigment.

Also:


In 1979, Walter McCrone, upon analyzing the samples he was given by STURP, concluded that the image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Come on really??? The incredulity I am experiencing with your justifications for this being false is unbelievable.

I'm going back to work for a while. Still waiting for you to logically discredit the op.......

Jaden



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

You guys have fun with your ridiculousness, I'm outta here for a while. It's so funny that people that claim to represent science resort to such religious fervor.

Even if your crap was accurate (although I have seen many studies that post date this 1979 study to quote that say there aren't pigments on the fibers) You still aren't addressing the OP...

Please find something wrong with the statistical analysis, and not just bullcrap about outliers used or not used. Show me how accuracy two standard deviations out can be trusted...

Jaden



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Yea, you didn't even make an attempt to understand what I was saying there did you? Nah, that way you can keep your condescending attitude without actually learning anything new. Enjoy your work. If you can't see the logic in my points then you don't want to see it.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

The Sudarium is the face cloth?

I.e. that which would be covering the face?




And the cloth, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 20:7. King James 2000 Bible


Why doesn't the Sudarium contain the image of J's "face" rather than the Shroud, again?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




However, the scientific community is divided over the shroud dates because — with the exception of the carbon dating tests — medical, artistic, forensic and botanical evidence favors the authenticity of the shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus.

One example of microscopic testing that supports the Shroud as authentic is the 1978 sample of dirt taken from the foot region of the burial linen. The dirt was analyzed at the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory in Salt Lake, Utah, where experts identified crystals of travertine argonite, a relatively rare form of calcite found near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. It is a stretch, say researchers, that a 13th century forger would have known to take the trouble to impregnate the linen with marble dust found near Golgotha in order to fool scientists 600 years later.


Read more at www.wnd.com...

March 13th 2015



It was used to clean his face and deposited away from the body once
inside the tomb. Then he was covered in the shroud with out it.

The fact quoted above is far more believable as evidence goes, than
any less pertinent carbon dating that is easily flawed.

edit on Rpm31315v462015u34 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Gryphon66




However, the scientific community is divided over the shroud dates because — with the exception of the carbon dating tests — medical, artistic, forensic and botanical evidence favors the authenticity of the shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus.

One example of microscopic testing that supports the Shroud as authentic is the 1978 sample of dirt taken from the foot region of the burial linen. The dirt was analyzed at the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory in Salt Lake, Utah, where experts identified crystals of travertine argonite, a relatively rare form of calcite found near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. It is a stretch, say researchers, that a 13th century forger would have known to take the trouble to impregnate the linen with marble dust found near Golgotha in order to fool scientists 600 years later.


Read more at www.wnd.com...

March 13th 2015



It was used to clean his face and deposited away from the body once inside the tomb.
Then he was covered in the shroud with out it.



World News Daily. Nuff said.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even more from Wiki then.



The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating.[2] Yet the cloth is reported to have resided in Spain since 631 AD.[citation needed] The laboratory used (via the National Museum in Madrid) said the later date may be due to an oil based contamination.[citation needed]

Using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy, research by the private Centro Español de Sindonología, (Spanish Centre for Sindonology) purported to show that the Sudarium of Oviedo could have touched the same face as the Shroud of Turin, but at different stages after the death of the man.[citation needed] Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus of Duke University, employed his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to study correlations between the Shroud and the Sudarium. Dr. Whanger found 70 points of correlation on the front of the Sudarium and 50 on the back. Researchers theorize that the Oviedo Cloth covered the face from the moment of death until replaced by the Shroud. The researchers cite purported bloodstains on both cloths, identifying them as belonging to the same type, AB,[citation needed] but no DNA testing has been carried out on blood samples from either cloth.


Nuff said.
edit on Rpm31315v002015u25 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even more from Wiki then.



The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating.[2] Yet the cloth is reported to have resided in Spain since 631 AD.[citation needed] The laboratory used (via the National Museum in Madrid) said the later date may be due to an oil based contamination.[citation needed]

Using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy, research by the private Centro Español de Sindonología, (Spanish Centre for Sindonology) purported to show that the Sudarium of Oviedo could have touched the same face as the Shroud of Turin, but at different stages after the death of the man.[citation needed] Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus of Duke University, employed his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to study correlations between the Shroud and the Sudarium. Dr. Whanger found 70 points of correlation on the front of the Sudarium and 50 on the back. Researchers theorize that the Oviedo Cloth covered the face from the moment of death until replaced by the Shroud. The researchers cite purported bloodstains on both cloths, identifying them as belonging to the same type, AB,[citation needed] but no DNA testing has been carried out on blood samples from either cloth.


Nuff said.


Do you see that [citation needed] in your quote? That means that it is an unsourced claim on Wikipedia. Now I usually talk up Wikipedia as a source, but that is because it has its sources at the bottom for anyone to confirm the information in the article. When THAT tag is used though, then it is an unfounded claim and is as valid and trustworthy as the WND source you posted earlier (not at all).

Wikipedia:Citation needed


To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a [[Citation needed]] tag.

Example: 65% of people believe in ghosts.[citation needed]

-Exercise caution before relying upon unsourced claims.
-If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.
-If someone tagged your contributions with [[Citation needed]] and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page.
-Controversial, poorly sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

edit on 13-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
here is a link that is a great FYI source...greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

 



even the latest review of the 2005 study of the shroud...says the radio carbon dating is askew... read the FAQ link above with 'Bell' who did the research study


was the image made by an external force [a resurrection ray of energy that made the Jesus corpse reanimate?]

I propose that the phenom known as Spontaneous Human Combustion SHC is the same kind of phenomena that produced the image on the Shroud...
the source of the 'energy' seems to be internal... i.e.: generated inside each cell of the body much like a nuclear chain reaction

Only some subjects get consumed by a very restricted heat/fire/chemical-electrical process... rather than resurrected of at least projecting some sort of energy which leaves an atomic level change in the fabric which mirrors the persons body


now... religion focused persons might profile the SHC event as done by the destroyer/ Devil
and the Spontaneous Human Transfiguration into a resurrected/incorruptible body as done by the creator/ God


but putting that religious spin aside... there seems to be an undiscovered and rare type of body generated 'energy' which at one extreme can burn a body to ashes...or in a short? burst of internally generated energy leave a cloth with a body image imprinted on it as is evident with the Shroud...

who knows if that is the image of the 5-8" - 6-1" Jesus, the tall muscular, rogue (teacher) Jewish Rabbi (not ordained by the orthodox, recognized Priesthood)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Do you see that [citation needed] in your quote?

Sure do, posted it anyways.


Now I usually talk up Wikipedia as a source,

Oh we know how that goes as well.

So why did I post it?

Because to" exercise caution" in no way means the forensic evidence is wrong.
At least not to the veracity of carbon dating.
And this:




“The only reasonable conclusion,” says Mark Guscin, author of “The Oviedo Cloth,” “is that the Sudarium of Oviedo covered the same head as that found on the Shroud of Turin.” Guscin, a British scholar whose study is the only English language book on the Sudarium, told WorldNetDaily, “This can be uncomfortable for scientists with a predetermined viewpoint; I mean, the evidence grows that this cloth and the Shroud covered the same tortured man.”


And this:



The significance of the Sudarium to the Shroud, in addition to the forensic evidence, is that the history of the Sudarium is undisputed. While the history of the Shroud is veiled in the mists of the Middle Ages, the Sudarium was a revered relic preserved from the days of the crucifixion.



edit on Rpm31315v422015u27 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Irrelevant. WND is a dubious source and I refuse to listen to anything reported in there as a valid opinion.

Here is a quote from Joe Nickell from the bottom of your wiki page:

as with the Shroud of Turin the study of the Oviedo Cloth is obviously characterized by pseudo-science and possibly worse. The problems are symptomatic of the bias that can occur when analyses of a controversial object are conducted not by independent experts, chosen solely for their expertise, but instead by committed self-selected partisans who begin with the desired answer and work backward to the evidence. As a result, science has once again been perverted in the interest of zealotry[4]


Hey look at that, MY quote has a citation next to it.
edit on 13-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   


where experts identified crystals of travertine argonite (sic), a relatively rare form of calcite found near the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. It is a stretch, say researchers, that a 13th century forger would have known to take the trouble to impregnate the linen with marble dust found near Golgotha in order to fool scientists 600 years later.




Travertine aragonite is found in many places, including Italy.....




originally posted by: randyvsThe fact quoted above is far more believable as evidence goes, than
any less pertinent carbon dating that is easily flawed.


So the 'fact' you quoted above isn't actually a fact.....
edit on 13-3-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Interesting evidence presented in your post; I'll have to follow up on that from some other source than "World Net Daily."

As to your interpretation of what might have happened with a burial cloth, etc., that's your speculation.

I was addressing the claim made earlier by the OP that there was another separate cloth relic that covered the face that is, at least according to their post, of the same type cloth, etc. as the Shroud.

It was not my claim that the cloth covered the face, but the OP's.

The Bible is clear in its statement that one cloth was wound about the head and another around the body.

Either that is true, or it is not, all snide, low-to-no-information posts pretending to logic to the side (not referring to yours, randyvs.)

I can't help you with the Bible's claim, but if the original source of the story is false ... well, you know.

I'm going to look into your point about "dirt" though ... that's actually something I'd never heard before.

Best,



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

A reasonable reply? What ever shall I do with that?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I believe that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. A fabricated fraud for foolish mortals to swallow. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
I believe that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. A fabricated fraud for foolish mortals to swallow. ~$heopleNation


 


have you ever considered that the Shroud is actually the prophecied Image of the AntiChrist (beast)

maybe that holographic, 3 dimensional 'image' on the Shroud will be Re-Animated with dark technology
to stand in Jerusalem holding the Black Stone of Islam...see: www.boldsky.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

What are you talking about?

I responded quite eloquently to the OP, and the OP's response to me was about the historicity of Jesus... a topic I never touched on. The OP didn't respond to a single point I made in my first response.

His second response to me was jumbling the Edessa Image and the Shroud of Turin together to make them seem like the same artefact... something which has never been proven. Again, a topic I never touched on.

The OP is the one going off on tangents, and hasn't responded to any of the points I have made in relation to Fanti and the OP.

Here... I'll leave a list of points about the OP source content that I posted earlier that has never been addressed in this thread:

(He = Fanti)
*He is starting from a point of confirmation bias.
*He isn't looking at the data objectively; rather he is looking for data to confirm his pre-existing views.
*He suggests the 1988 tests excluded statistical outliers, using those outliers as a starting point for his own experiments... then hypocritically excludes inconvenient outliers in his own methodology.
*The samples he uses in his experiments are extremely compromised, and not even certain they were from the shroud, they were vacuumed up with detritus where the shroud used to be hung (hasn't been there for years), along with dust from other exhibits and centuries of accumulation... completely jeopardizing their validity.
*His book is not peer reviewed, as his results are unverifiable, and unscientific.
*His book is about profit not good science.
*He has a reputation for theoscience, and has tried in the past to pass off theocracy as science.
*There is no proof presented in his work... Just a series of probabilities.

Put another way, there is at least a 5% chance Fanti is wrong, even using his biased methodology.

edit on 13-3-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join