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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

If you actually read replies, you would see that I've addressed them in my previous post above your one.

You have made assertions and you used biased sources to back yourself up.

This thread isn't about some new type of dating. It's about trying to prove the shroud hoax isn't a hoax (which you can't, btw).




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   


The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p.501) Many of them still are Black, in northern Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia.

A New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that has kept its identity for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus p.50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -- through Solomon/Queen of Sheba and King David.

Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origin." The Bible classifies the Ethiopians and Jews together, "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos 9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language, religion and culture from the Canaanites and Sumerians through Babylon, is well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really dialectical variants of African languages.

The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK! (mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half. "half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C. from crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white northern invaders.

While many Semites (such as Jews and gypsies) have mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their African roots, racism (white supremacy) will never let them forget this no matter how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated their destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white" people originating in Africa. The very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."

African Americans are largely descendants of the original Black Jews! The original Biblical Jews were Black African people who were ruthlessly persecuted by the white man (Romans). The prophet Jesus was a Black Jew who was born during this time. The Roman-Jewish War in 66 A.D. marked the peak of this persecution and the end of the original Black Jews (Hebrew-Israelites) as a nation.


religiouscrossroads.tribe.net...


So basically there is no way the Shroud of Turin is Authentic.




3. It's a photograph
Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright. This deepens the mystery, and Pia himself casually suggested that the shroud could have been made by some primitive kind of photography. That idea has been inventively pursued by South African art historian Nicholas Allen, who argues that it could in principle have been achieved using materials and knowledge available to medieval scholars many centuries before genuine photography was invented. The key to the idea is the light-sensitive compound silver nitrate, the stuff that darkened the emulsion of the first true photographic plates in the 19th Century, as light transformed the silver salt into tiny black particles of silver metal.

This substance does seem to have been known in the Middle Ages, Allen says: it was described in the writings of the 8th Century Arabic alchemist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, and also by the German Dominican Albertus Magnus in the 13th Century. It could have been coated on to the cloth in a darkened chamber and exposed to sunlight through a lens - made of quartz not glass, since the silver is in fact darkened by ultraviolet light, which glass absorbs but quartz does not. Allen has made replicas of a shroud this way using model figurines. But how the image stays on the cloth when the silver is removed, and how mediaeval forgers gathered all this sophisticated knowledge about optics and chemistry without there being any trace in surviving documents poses problems for the idea. So do various issues about the exact shape and contrast of an image made this way. For most Turin Shroud theorists, Allen's idea is a triumph of ingenuity over plausibility.



www.bbc.com...

That Is the problem with your position TerryDon79.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I know there's problems in the idea behind the "photograph", but it certainly isn't an imprint of a body from 2000 years ago lol.

Hell, for all I know aliens could have done it with some very sophisticated lasers or alien slime or something lol.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I am not going to dignify your personal attacks by going into a look like debate anymore when I see you lack of any objectivity in the topic, but moreover because those are not my assertions, I just only have disclosed results of a team of researchers working on this problem in Italy.

So I don't need to back up claims or assertions that belong to other scientists that by the way are the ones presenting to the world their work, this is a huge misunderstanding from your side.

As my posts clearly say the authors of the new research using Spectroscopy and mechanical tests are leaded by Dr Giulio Fanti and have published their results in Scientific Journals, like Vibrational Spectroscopy, so they are perfectly professional to defend their results.

Of course I am able to see that your way of thinking in this subject is determined by your already personal opinions on it, you have not even posted one single substantial comment on what the three Italian Universities(Padua, Bologna, Emilia) have found apart of Davinci code imaginary conspiracies that it seems you are convinced exist somewhere.

What comes to my attention is that you are not looking to find any true here as might be the motivation of scientists like Giulio Fanti, you just have decided to anchor yourself in controversial results of a failed attempt of dating from almost 30 years ago.

The problem that you don't want to see is that C14 technology as it was applied in 1980s has been fully exposed as obsolete and in many cases not reliable by world known authorities in the field of archaelogy and medicine like Dr. Leoncio Garza-valdez of the University of Arizona since even before that unfortunate test was performed.

By the way we are in 2017 not in 1988, if you have not had time to update your Calendar.

In 1988 there was not even Internet, all microcomputers were DOS or UNIX, The already collapsed USSR was in cold war with the west, Concorde was still flying, cellular phones were bulky and inaccessible to many people, and everybody was having fun watching Vhs movies.

That gives you an idea of how logic is to consider definitive the technology of that time seeing it from today, or anytime at future, Science is always evolving.

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



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I'm not sure how that was addressing any of the flaws in your links that I posted, but congrats on realising it's not 1988!

ETA: Thought I would add a nice little link for you that throws your "C14 dating is wrong" out the window. Strangely, it was posted in one of your many shroud threads.

LINK FROM 2015

Also, you realise that this dating used has only given a vague idea of age, right? 400ad +-400 years MEANS it could be aged from 0 to 800ad. That's hardly what I would call accurate. AND it's "95% accurate". C14 dating is 94% accurate, yet you ignore it, unless it confirms something you believe in.
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79,

You are considering as determinant a paradigm of decades ago after that is already superated by much recent technology. That is not scientific and a very bad practice of Engineering.

There is always the possibility that something yesterday looked impossible to understand or reach now is no longer a mystery and tomorrow will be attainable.

The laboratories of 1988 C14 testing were well aware that something abnormal was happening in their results because they were so much skewed, so they first violated protocols and started to exchange data before the official deadline date to disclose the results, but also started to remove what they considered outliers, as soon as they noticed the mismatch, thinking wrongly it was the best way to fix the extremely high variance issue.

Their great mistake was that they didn't find any other way to handle them or explanation for those removed outliers.

In 2017 Statistics no body ignore or remove any data, since Science has found that lead to terrible mistakes.

Statistician of today know outliers usually reveal hidden variables not considered initially in the analysis like the bioplastic film created by bacteria along centuries in that cloth or the presence of reweaven with much younger cotton over the original linen material

Here there is a Robust analysis of Variance performed by Riani, Atkinson and Fanti over the entire data produced by the three labs involved in the 1988 attempt of dating. They showed in the conference of ENEA, in Italy on 2010 to the scientific community that the C14 data of 1988 is useless for dating , is clearly revealing contamination of the sample.

www.acheiropoietos.info...

To talk about hoax is also highly unprofessional in science, no test has as an outcome the condition of hoax, that is a moral judgement over something that challenges understanding. A Scientist does not express results using such criminal terms, that is the job of a prosecutor.

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



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

Lots of words, yet no substance.

I know you need this shroud to not be a hoax, but it is. It's nothing more than a medieval artefact of some kind (photograph, stage prop or any number of things). An imprint of a 2000 year old, 6 foot, white guy with a broken nose, wrapped in cloth, it is not.
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


I have taken some time to read on the subject with a point being the body (if it was a real body) emitted radiation after ingesting large dosages of a radioactive substance.

Or perhaps a radioactive substance was used in combination with other elements to generate a florescent substance which was applied to the body , like makeup?
edit on 21-1-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Radiation of some kind could be plausible as the "image" itself is a negative. That's also a side theory to the sun bleach as that is a form of radiation too.

There's nothing on the cloth to suggest it was a painting, so I would rule out makeup because makeup is nothing more than a form of painting (body paint).



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


What of you mixed Uranium with a Fluor resulting in a florescent material?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: TerryDon79


What of you mixed Uranium with a Fluor resulting in a florescent material?



All I can think of is a glow in the dark ghost lol.

I'm no expert, but wouldn't the uranium mess up the c14 dating completely?



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


Say for example one (which is really like abuse today), insisted someone (in this case a human being) ingested 100 times the lethal dose of uranium (like crushed akin to salt) and perhaps mixed with with a Fluor, what would be the result besides of course death?
edit on 21-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Renal failure, massive amounts of pain, internal burning and bleeding and hopefully become a superhero.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light


The problem is that the Shroud Of Turin could be evidence of a murder that occurred during the 14th century A.D.

We have pretty much known about Uranium since 73ce.


Pre-discovery use

The planet Uranus, which uranium is named after

The use of uranium in its natural oxide form dates back to at least the year 79 CE, when it was used to add a yellow color to ceramic glazes.[9] Yellow glass with 1% uranium oxide was found in a Roman villa on Cape Posillipo in the Bay of Naples, Italy, by R. T. Gunther of the University of Oxford in 1912.[25] Starting in the late Middle Ages, pitchblende was extracted from the Habsburg silver mines in Joachimsthal, Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic), and was used as a coloring agent in the local glassmaking industry.[26] In the early 19th century, the world's only known sources of uranium ore were these mines.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


The problem is that the Shroud Of Turin could be evidence of a murder that occurred in the 1300ce.


Murder by uranium laced baked goods?

(That's not a sentence I ever thought I would use)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why.
Everyone in 1300 knew that uranium is slightly radioactive and that it is the best way to murder someone.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why.
Everyone in 1300 knew that uranium is slightly radioactive and that it is the best way to murder someone.


I don't know if your being serious or being sarcastic.

It doesn't help that I don't know that much about uranium to be able to know either way.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

This is what I mean by flour...



The short answer to your question is "no," radioactive things do not glow in the dark - not by themselves anyway. Radiation emitted by radioactive materials is not visible to the human eye. However, there are ways to"convert" this invisible energy to visible light. Many substances will emit visible light if "stimulated" by the ionizing radiation from radioactive material. These materials are known as "fluors" or "scintilators." So, by mixing some radioactive material with such a fluor, you can make a substance that glows. This kind of material has been used in things like the faces of clocks, watches, and instruments on ships and airplanes to make them visible in the dark. This is why most people think of glowing things when they think of radioactive materials.


education.jlab.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why.
Everyone in 1300 knew that uranium is slightly radioactive and that it is the best way to murder someone.


I don't know if your being serious or being sarcastic.

It doesn't help that I don't know that much about uranium to be able to know either way.

The latter.

There are better ways to poison someone. The art was well established by then.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join