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.

 

Chemical & Mechanical Not destructive tests Dated Turin Shroud in 1st Century.

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

So your motivation to come to this thread is not to contribute with serious scientific arguments at all in the discussion of the dating problems, but moved by your confessed antireligious prejudgements to try to deviate the discussion
In to another very different topic.

At least I like your honesty of last minute to disclose what was your real goal here.

I disagree with you, History is not an speculative Science, you can find speculation in Philosophy perhaps, History is the recollection of facts and how they were related to explain the dynamics of certain time period.

Maybe in Ancient Egypt or in the China of Mao or the Germany of Hitler They used to rewrite their History, but that is not serious exercise in that science.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Don't get your knickers in a twist The angel of light.


My motivation as to responding in this thread was simply to share my views regarding the subject in question.

There are rather a few issues regarding the Shroud of Turin other than just the problems that surround dating the object.

Hence my ambivalence to believe in its authenticity, that being said real or not it has certainly served its purpose.


edit on 21-1-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Still waiting for that unbiased source to back up your claim of


Now, that date is problematic because there Historic records that show this piece of cloth was already in exhibition long time before that date.


If you can't supply an unbiased source, wouldn't it be the right thing to say you do t have one?

Also, why are you ignoring my posts? Is it because each time ive replied about how the shroud is a hoax and WHY it is a hoax, you can't counter it?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
So, let's recap on this hoax.

-It isn't an imprint of a person as there are obvious disproportions.
-It can easily have been made by technology available in medieval time (glass and sun bleaching).
-It's been dated to the 1300s (medieval times).
-The type of weave wasn't used in Palestine at the time jesus was supposedly there, but was pretty common in medieval times.
-All current dating techniques can't get an accurate date after it was preserved because of radiation exposure.

Did I miss anything?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Let's point the things clearly here,

First, this Shroud is not from the textile manufacturing point of view Medieval, of course it does not surprise me at all that you as it is your way reply with no references at all to support such a bold false claim.

The Shroud weaven is typical of Egyptian textiles of first century and the way the burial strips are seemed to it was only been found in Masada, Palestine in archaeological digging on remains of the first century. Now, the material is already identified as Indian Linen, nothing to do with Europe.

Please check:

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

www.shroud.com...

www.sindone.info...

Second, if you have lack ability to go and read to confirm by yourself existing historic accounts of the existence of this object, after bibliography was provided is very clear that the problem is in you, nothing will satisfy your stubborn attitude of denial or difficulty to understand.

I have provided along many posts in this thread not just links but access to entire papers and even books that are full of references you or any other reader can trace back to comment what ever considers relevant about them.

Many of those sources do not have anything in connection with the current owners of the cloth, belong to other organizations not only not affiliated to the Roman Church but schismatically separated from it confirming the Shroud existence 10 and 15 centuries ago.

Now there are even attacks published against the authenticity of the relic from records existing long time before the supposed date of origin, according with the 1988 attempt of dating with C14.

Byzantine, Syrian, Assyrian, Amenian, Turkish or Persian muslims, Orthodox, Coptics, Templar records, quoted even in details in the links I have already posted along many replies ,are in those categories, they are historic sources about the Shroud different exhibitions and trips that can't be biased or controlled at all by the Vatican.

I am so sorry, but I am not going to answer any more of the absurd questions of a person that in the best of the cases suffers a learning inability or a personality disorder.

Of course you can tell what ever you want about this topic or about any other but that does not mean you are correct or even that you have a point, especially when you don't bring any references to support such claims, in the way I certainly have had the time and respect to share in the thread with all the readers.

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Nice ad homs there. Very Christian.

Now, where's those unbiased sources?

Oh, that's right. You refuse to answer even the most basic of questions about a piece of medieval cloth that some religious folk think isn't a hoax.

Sorry to tell you, but it is a hoax.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I noticed you edited your post to include more BIASED sources.

So I'll ask again.....

Can you provide any UNBIASED sources?
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well andy06shake,

We all in one way or other at some point of our lives have become familiar with the unsolved mysteries of this extraordinary burial object, after all it has been considered for many centuries allegedly connected with a major figure of the civilization, but every time that new findings emerge around it the trend points to support a non European origin of this relic, what makes more difficult to trust in the hypotheses of a medieval fake.

We know from recent DNA analysis of samples of bust collected from the Shroud that the most likely origin of the raw material it is made of is India.

Please check,
www.nature.com...

Thanks

The Angel of lightness
edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

You mean new BIASED findings that are done in such a way as to look credible, when in fact they're not?

This new "evidence" of yours is a joke and nothing more.

The shroud was PRESERVED so ANY tests AFTER it was PRESERVED are going to be WRONG.

Does the capitals help you see the point?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hi,
Please don't take this as antagonistic, it is not meant to be and my intention is not to 'take sides'...

I have to ask, are you really reading the posts and links thoroughly? Because the Op has been including "unbiased" sources...

...for example: the third link in his larger post above is to an article from a British magazine called "Textile Horizons", and in fact the linked article also has references listed among which are several from unbiased sources.

As well, the post to 'Andy06' has a link to a very interesting study, which is also from an "unbiased" source (if you feel that to be untrue, could you please explain where the 'bias' in the report is?)

Also, I don't see where the Op is guilty of any "Ad homs", being called "stubborn" for refusing to even read resources provided (how could you have done in the mere 4 minutes before your reply to the particular post in question?) -

- hardly counts as an 'ad hom'...

Considering that you aren't actually reading (much less, taking time to consider) the resources presented, and also are not presenting any research of your own, it seems to me that your only purpose in this thread is to debunk and derail...

...If you were truly interested in 'unbiased' debate over the provenance of the shroud, I would think you could provide links showing the evidence of your research..

Again, please don't mistake me, I have a lot of respect for ATS members who show 'honest' skepticism (Phage for example), which is why I find efforts at mere 'debunking' so disappointing.


edit on 21-1-2017 by lostgirl because: addendum



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: lostgirl

I have looked at every link posted (and a lot more outside of this thread).

You know that every link posted, they all have a vested interest, one way or another. Be it religious, monetary or by affiliation.

Also, John Tryrer (textile pdf) is a member of the British Society of the Turin Shroud. That's hardly unbiased. His own words are found HERE


Not long after I became a member of the British Society of the Turin Shroud, I was given a more direct interest in Shroud investigations when David Sox asked me whether I might be interested in looking further at the evidence available about the Shroud as a textile.


FOR PEOPLES VIEWING PLEASURE.

This site contains the results of a crude experiment that could potentially explain how the Shroud was produced.

He explains how simple and common it was for medieval folk to create such a thing.
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: lostgirl

Well lost girl at least you forced this person to realize the kind of ridicule represents to be posting in a compulsive way repeatedly almost the same exact phrase every time I post something.

I have my chronometer counting the timing of these events and it is pretty clear that he can't be reading at all any of the references , there is no way he could be understanding what is there.

I hope we are not actually dealing with a robot , a kind of malicious algorithm, perhaps a Trojan or informatic virus somebody has trained to boycott selectively threads.

I brought to discussion not only great diversity of sources, including Jewish ones, but also articles coming from scientific journals that no body in his sane mind can consider biased, propaganda can't be accepted by such publications.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light


I brought to discussion not only great diversity of sources


That are all in one way or another vested in the shroud being real.

See my second link above. A christian who would love for it to be real (his own admission), yet he knows it's a provable hoax.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Really? I post scientific journal articles or papers and you reply with Anti Catholic religious fundamentalist propaganda?

I think you don't understand what kind of thread is this one, this is the science forum, here we are not into enemity between religions or churches, as well as this is Not the forum of conspiracies in religion , that is off topic.

Our subject is Mechanical and Chemical tests to date as alternative to C14 in contaminated sampling.

Angel of Lightness



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: VegHead

Well dear Veghead,

Certainly this study by the Italian Universities is making History, so your wait was not in vain finally science has found the way to overcome the dating dificulties of old textiles we had 30 years ago when only C14 existed as complementary technology to dendrological, polen or manufacturing techniques verification to provide a fair dating.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

You haven't posted anything to back up your assertions though.

Did you know in your MAIN LINK, J. Michael Fischer ADAPTED an article from someone who sells books on.....you guessed it.....the shroud of turin? But what else should I expect from a RELIGIOUS site that offers things like Debunking Evolution Problems between the theory and reality, Carbon-dating dinosaur bones Thousands, not millions of years old and The universe had a beginning Astrophysicist concludes there is no alternative.

The other links you provided offer no scientific articles on the study of the shroud. All they do is postulate and try and make it come across as fact.

You say this isn't about religion, yet the shroud is ALL about religion. You can pretend it's not, by putting it in the science forum, but it doesn't mean it isn't.
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are lying to justify your destructive and Anti scientific attitude, as well as your systematic off topic attacks from your personal obsessions on religious hatred.

You can't declare this topic as taboo for scientific research, if you think you can you are delusional, with all respect.

Among the links I posted there are actual papers published by the team of University of Padua, Bolognia and Emilia University that have carried out the new dating tests.

Just in the opening post alone there are references pointing to papers containing these results and others related to them from the last years appeared in Termodinamica Acta, Aimeta, Vibrational Spectroscopy J., J. of Archaeological Science.

To claim that not scientific publications that I have cited like Judaic encyclopedia or the New York times are also biased in favor of any side in this topic is also insane, you are years light of to be objective.

Also there are papers published by the people study the textile configuration of the cloth published in Textile Horizons and also papers from the researchers that perform the DNA testing published in Scientific Reports

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light


You are lying to justify your destructive and Anti scientific attitude, as well as your systematic off topic attacks.

No I'm not. I even posted where the site you linked to were being dishonest.
I've not been off topic. The subject is about the shroud of turin hoax. I've posted about the shroud of turin hoax.
Anti scientific? Really? Who are the ones who completely ignore every bit of science around the shroud hoax, apart from when it confirms what they want?


Among the links I posted there are actual papers published by the team of University of Padua, Bolognia and Emilia University that have carried out the new dating tests.

Also there are papers published by the people study the textile configuration of the cloth and also papers from the researchers that perform the DNA testing.


Like THIS ONE, that tested surface particles? I guess you've never heard of contamination
Or THIS ONE, done by someone who is a part of the British Society of the Turin Shroud?
Or any of your other links that either are from a BIASED site or only mention the testing in general and not the shroud?

So, what EXACTLY did I lie about?

edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

OK. Because you insist on HEAVILY editing your posts after I've responded, I will go through some of your links and post what I have been saying about BIASED sources and irrelevance since page 1.

Your first link is just a religious biased site that is EXTREMELY anti science and is made by someone trying to sell a book the shroud of turin
It's a RELIGIOUS site that offers things like Debunking Evolution Problems between the theory and reality, Carbon-dating dinosaur bones Thousands, not millions of years old and The universe had a beginning Astrophysicist concludes there is no alternative
Again, HEAVILY biased.

Your second link, funnily enough, doesn't work.

FROM YOUR 3rd LINK (PDF)

Rounding the result to the century with an uncertainty evaluated at 95% confidence level, according with the MMPDM, the date of the TS is 400 AD ±400 years.
So that means it could be anywhere between 0AD and 800AD. In other words, not evidence it was from the 1st century AD.

YOUR 4TH LINK is just trying to sell a book and is ANOTHER religious site, so that is biased also.

YOUR 5TH LINK AND 6TH LINKS is ANOTHER site run by a christian. That makes it biased, but at least he's honest with this...

My experience with those who are scientists and do primary research on the Shroud is that many of them feel the same way. I think that most scientists who study the Shroud think, as I do, that the images are probably some unexplained natural phenomenon.


YOUR 7TH LINK is just about ancient burial practices. Doesn't prove or disprove the shroud hoax.

YOUR 8TH LINK is a blog and an opinion. Hardly anything substantial. Also, all it proves is the image on the shroud wasn't painted. That doesn't mean it's real.

YOUR 9TH LINK says this (as pointed our by phage)...

Dr. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology at Columbia University who is a member of the Lamont-Doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.

So, unless your shroud is older than 9,000 years, it's irrelevant.

That's the first NINE links that are either irrelevant or biased.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Look, I don't have any sectarian or fanatic motivation into open this thread, as clearly you have accepted to have.

Here are your own words:


TeryDon79: You say this isn't about religion, yet the shroud is ALL about religion. You can pretend it's not, by putting it in the science forum, but it doesn't mean it isn't.


I am just a Scientist, with Masters of Science studies in Applied Math and in Statistics, and Doctoral studies in Engineering, who is pretty curious of the results gotten by scientists of three Universities of extremely long tradition of serious research in science, among which it is Bologna University, the eldest of all Europe.

It is absolutely false that these are my assertions, I have fully credited since the very opening post the respective authors and cited them properly but more over posting links to their extremely interesting papers:

1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, from July 2013, "Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means
of vibrational spectroscopy" by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70;

Please check initial post of thread to have access to it via journal link.

2) a paper titled "A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers
coming from the Turin Shroud" by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical
and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013,

Please also refer to opening post to find link to it.

I see really an extremely passionate fanatic attitude from your side about this topic.

Here there is no debate at all about the subject because I am not involved in that research at all, I am just informing the people of the forum, who happen to be also many of them Scientists about these interesting results.

If you want to debate conclusions you are free to write to Professor Giulio Fanti, or any of his team colleagues R Basso, A Tinti, P Baraldi, o P. Malfi, at Padua U. or Emilia U. or Bologna U.

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 1/21/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)







 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join