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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Not Phantom, but at the moment it arrived a lot of not very serious others posts of really questionable quality were stealing attention from the readers.

As a matter of fact yours was at that moment the only one really deserving a reply and clearly in topic.

The thread is a space of this so important findings not only because the object they were working on, but the kind of problem they have tried to overcome, there are many more ancient burial objects that have suffered similar contamination as this one, also the restorers hace altered drastically their original compositions adding a lot of repairs.

The Maya figurine that Garza Valdes was trying to date from a private collection in Texas and the 1770 Egyptian mummy of the Manchester Museum are just two of many similar cases that deffy the C14 conventional methods.


Thanks for your interesting reply,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/22/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

By "stealing attention", do you really mean "showing how the shroud is a hoax"?

I'd still like an unbiased source for the dating claims of "1st century ad".



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Phantom423

Not Phantom, but at the moment it arrived a lot of not very serious others posts of really questionable quality were stealing attention from the readers.

Thanks for your reply,

The Angel of Lightness


One of the things I don't understand about the research around the Shroud is why they don't take more samples and send them out to various labs around the world. The samples need not be large. Destructive vs nondestructive really shouldn't be an issue if they want real answers to the questions. Duplicating results is the most important aspect of any test - it absolutely must be done in order to draw valid conclusions. Just looking through the experiments that have been done on very limited samples, there are more questions than answers. The hoax or fake results are not conclusive either. So I just wonder why the owners of the Shroud aren't more proactive towards obtaining more data. Personally, I'd be looking at the pigments remaining in the Shroud because we know a lot about how pigments originate, chemical composition and how they degrade.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: The angel of light

By "stealing attention", do you really mean "showing how the shroud is a hoax"?

I'd still like an unbiased source for the dating claims of "1st century ad".


How do you conclude it's a hoax without duplication of actual experiments? I only see very limited experimentation on authentic samples. You can speculate as to why those experiments are invalid, but you can't actually prove it without duplicating the experiments on authentic samples and then showing definitively through sets of other experiments that the Shroud is a fake.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
*** Mod Note ***

If you wanted to be in a place where everybody agrees with everything you post and everything you say, then ATS is not the place for you.

This is a discussion forum and ATS does not allow the 'gatekeeping' of topics or threads by it's members.

NO member is to tell other members to post on topic, or that they are in violation of the TAC. You may file an alert with staff if this is the case, otherwise, you are the one being off-topic.

If you are going to post information that you want to discuss, then you must be willing to entertain and discuss the research/opinions of those who disagree with what you've presented.

A one sided conversation, is not a conversation, it is a speech, or a keynote address.

Discussions will naturally evolve to fit the topic at hand. If you post research and some members disagree with that research, they have every right to post about it, in the very same thread. You have the right to ignore them, but you do not have the right to tell them to leave, or that they are otherwise breaking the rules.

ATS is not an echo chamber, this is a community of skeptics. Post at your own risk, but do not try and move the goal posts because you don't like the direction the conversation is going.

And as well, please do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Three different labs preformed the same test literally a triple blind as well as the fact Israelites of the time had Nubian skeletal features.

Myself I find the TS a very interesting artifact worthy of investigation but not because it is an image of Jesus of Nazareth.

In reality while human knowledge has advanced historically in the cerebrally for the human condition were pretty much no different IQ wise than we were thousands of years ago. Now you take someone with the type of brain of say Albert Einsteinborn in the 1300's with access to what was then the state of the art. It is possible that such a person could come up with a way of doing this.

beyond that the 1300's was the beginning of the the Renaissance in Italy as well between 1347-1351 25 million people died as a result of the Black Death in Europe. Natural disasters have toppled many empires as the masses loose faith in the leaderships ability to call upon deities for safety.

At the time they would have needed something to reassure the public they were still viable in that sense.






edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content

edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Content Edit



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Because all of the evidence points to it being a hoax.

Carbon dating results.
The type of weave used.
The time it "surfaced" also coincides with the carbon dating tests.
The disproportionate body parts.
The fact that the image it's a 6+ foot white guy.
The broken nose (biblically, Jesus' bones can't be broken).

Those are just the ones off the top of my head.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I quite agree.

Triple blind tests PLUS a benchmark.

Don't get me wrong, I find the shroud interesting. Just not for the claims of it being Jesus. And because of those claims, we'll likely never know the full truth as it will always end up getting skewed.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Phantom423

Because all of the evidence points to it being a hoax.

Carbon dating results.
The type of weave used.
The time it "surfaced" also coincides with the carbon dating tests.
The disproportionate body parts.
The fact that the image it's a 6+ foot white guy.
The broken nose (biblically, Jesus' bones can't be broken).

Those are just the ones off the top of my head.


Well I'm thinking more in terms of chemical analysis. What people said or how they interpret the visual aspects really doesn't tell us much about the chemical composition of what makes up the picture. Of course you need samples to put it through the rigors of modern testing. That's the problem as I said in another post.

I just wouldn't draw any conclusions until a thorough analysis was done. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone has duplicated the technique which produced the picture on the cloth, isn't that right? That's an interesting question as well.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

If you consider how much it has been handled in the 60s, 70s and 80s alone, then a chemical analysis would be rather pointless as it's too contaminated. Add in the preservation techniques (radiation and argon) and the testing of the shroud will now provide erroneous results.

It has been explain how it could be done. Obviously there's a couple of flaws, but it's possible that it was an image created with glass and sun bleaching.

LINK

I'm not saying it's the only way it could be done or even if this was the way it was done, but it's one of many, alternative possibilities.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Phantom423

If you consider how much it has been handled in the 60s, 70s and 80s alone, then a chemical analysis would be rather pointless as it's too contaminated. Add in the preservation techniques (radiation and argon) and the testing of the shroud will now provide erroneous results.

It has been explain how it could be done. Obviously there's a couple of flaws, but it's possible that it was an image created with glass and sun bleaching.

LINK

I'm not saying it's the only way it could be done or even if this was the way it was done, but it's one of many, alternative possibilities.


There might be other sources of samples for comparative analysis though:

Jesus' tomb was just exposed for the first time in centuries. Here are the photos.
PRI's The World
November 03, 2016 · 2:30 PM EDT

news.nationalgeographic.com...

If this tomb is the real thing, it's unlikely that every molecule of blood has been cleared out of that tomb. In the Jewish tradition, Jesus was probably buried that same day before sunset. There would have been a massive amount of blood. The iron atom chelated to the porphyrin ligand might be embedded in the limestone/marble tomb which is just calcium carbonate. I don't know if anyone has attempted to extract iron from the Shroud as a degradation product of heme - but not totally out of the question that there might be some iron there.

Just thinking out of the box, there are other ways to approach this problem.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Perhaps doing something to the material prior to the TS being made then like, some jigsaw puzzle putting it together.

Like something was done to the flax plants (hybrids) the linen was made of.

Just speculating.
edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Making a flax plant that is resistant to the standard forms of bleaching in the 1300's.

Guys if I am way of on this let me know



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The problem you have there is you would first need to prove the existence of the biblical jesus. Working off the assumption he is real then makes any "discoveries" about the shroud, based on an assumption.

You see what I'm trying to say without being offensive?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I'm not sure what you mean.

Can you expand a bit?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


One way of understanding Jesus Christ as well as all other Prophets is that he was the result of Punctuated Equilibrium in relation to Evolutionary theory.

In a billion or so years from now we could all be playing water polo while walking on the water.






edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

You mean a more evolved one of us?

Went back to year dot from billions of years in the future, maybe?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well the linen in question, when it was prepared would have been bleached using the tech of the time. But what if one were to create a hybrid that resisted that effect resulting in color being inherent to the fibers that would not change as a result of treatment to make it white.

In that sense it would be a painting.




edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Phantom423

The problem you have there is you would first need to prove the existence of the biblical jesus. Working off the assumption he is real then makes any "discoveries" about the shroud, based on an assumption.

You see what I'm trying to say without being offensive?


That's possible. But the problem still remains as to how the shroud was made and the approximate date. Right now, there isn't any conclusive evidence as to where and when the shroud was made. Would be interesting regardless who it is in the picture. I don't like mysteries - they keep me up at night trying to figure them out!!

I'd take it on if given the chance.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Historically our focus on cerebral capacities is in play with respect to Evolutionary theory.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join