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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I am going to try to answer all your interesting concerns using the same numerals of your post:

1) That is false, there were crucial women in the Judeo Christian cultural world that appear in full use of their rights and I am not referring only to Golda Meir who was the first Primer Minister ever of any middle east country, but even in scriptures
as the level of protagonist of important chapters of History: Esther, who was a Hebrew empress of Persia, Jael who was heroine in the war against Philistines, or Ruth and Noemi who were ancestors of Christ, centuries before Mary, the mother of Jesus, who in Orthodox, Coptic, Episcopalian and Roman Catholicism is almost a fourth person of the Holy Trinity.

2) What are you talking about? Again absolutely false, excuse me but there were crucial femenine figures in positions of Power in the Christian world as never happened for instance in the Muslim or Indian one long time before the 1930s, Isabella Catholica of Spain, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine II the Great of Russia, Empress Maria Therese of Austria, Queen Victoria of England, etc.

3)Slavery is not a Christian institution, it existed centuries even before Christianity became an important Religion.There were Slaves in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Pagan Rome, there exist thousands of historic records that can show that. Slavery was even in modern times initiated by traders of prisoners of tribal wars in Western Africa who sold them first to Arab caravans and then after to the Portuguese and English travelers arriving to those countries.

4) It is absolutely insane to blame a thinker of the first century for excesses and crimes of intolerance committed by fanatics that were living at least 15 centuries after him, Jesus christ by sure never would approve the actions of the Inquisition or the witches hunting in Salem or other parts of New England by Protestant tribunals. Jesus opposed peacefully to any kind of violence against him or his followers, there were terrible prosecutions against Christians under the Roman Empire that are evidence that Christians were never violent people. Islam, Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism have committed similar intolerance crimes and even in more recent times than the ones you attribute exclusively to Christianity, there are arbitrary executions without even right to trial in Muslim territories just to be free thinker, or to be an emancipated woman or to be member of the LGBT community.

In the last part of your extensive post we agreed that C14 is a dating destructive technique that needed to be improved, we could not continue relying on something that needs to destroy historic objects to be able to date them and also in a technique that can be easily biased with certain environmental conditions that can alter the natural chemical composition of an object to be tested.

I comes to my attention your emphasis in to try to expose the Roman Catholic Church in all possible ways, I am wondering why? I found this pretty far from our topic of discussion, since anyway this relic started to be in possession of that institution by the XIX century, long time after it appeared in History.

The Shroud was before owned for centuries by secular or Not Catholic people like:

- The Royal House of Saboy, This shroud was kept in Chambery, England until the year 1578 where it was almost destroyed by fire,
- it was before in Liray France in possession of the Charney family of Templars for almost two centuries,
- before that was taken away from the siege of Constantinople to be kept in a Orthodox Monastery at Athens,
- before the siege was in exhibition at the Byzantine Cathedral of Eastern Constantinople,
- before that was in the treasure of the Byzantine Imperial House,
- before that was at the Edessa Royal Palace in eastern Turkey, etc. etc.

Please check:

www.allaboutarchaeology.org...

museumoftheholyshroud.net...

shroudencounter.com...

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Why do you keep going on about religion when you stated "this thread is about science, not religion"?

Maybe because IT IS about religion? Just another religious person trying to "prove" jesus existed by purposely manipulating the truth or putting up links from other religious people who do the same.

But it's it about religion, right?



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Look TerryDon79,

This is not an exclusively religious issue, if you or other people want to see it in that way you are free to think that, but this is a major discovery that has to do with the History of the Western Civilization, that is the reason for which it is meaningful not only for religious people.

I would not be surprised if at some point in the very near future Dr Giulio Fanti of Padua University and his team of colleagues of Emilia and Bologna Universities receive a Nobel Prize of Chemistry or other so High international recognition for this so important finding.


This is important for modern Science because now that we know it really comes from the 1st Century and considering that it is the burial cloth of a human being that suffered an execution like it is only one in History, the one of Jesus Christ, it becomes precious for Historians of all kind.


If the relic is today in custody of the Catholic Church it is consequence of fortune, they don't have nothing what so ever to do with its origins, I am not saying that is bad that they have it, just only that this object belongs to humanity in general, not only to them.

I personally think that now that it has been correctly dated it must be declared Cultural patrimony of Humanity by Unesco and possibly that institution must take at least in part responsibility of its custody and preservation, as well as the Italian State.


As a matter fact, the Savoy Residences are already declared as UNESCO Heritage, and that is the place this Shroud must be kept if they would have not donated it in the XIX century to the Roman Catholic church.

Please check:
www.italia.it...

This is a so important object from Historic point of view to be only responsibility of one only religious organization, perhaps if that happened it ends all this envy and jealousy that boost so much attacks against it.

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Just a thought, but how can you start a thread about the Shroud of Turin, a length of linen cloth bearing the alleged image of Jesus of Nazareth, which is indeed considered to be a religious artifact and then claim it's not about religion?

Obviously the topic is going to rear it's head.


edit on 24-1-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Of course its religious. The hoax that is the shroud of Turin, is a religious item (regardless of it being fake). Without the item "portraying jesus", all you would have is a medieval bit of cloth with a white dude on it.

So for people like you, you HAVE to prove it's real as it would prove jesus to be real.

Just because you've tried your hardest to mask this as science, doesn't mean this thread is about science as you (and others) ignore ALL the data that contradicts your precious "1st century ad" time.

You've also had a few rants about RELIGION.

Bur it's not about religion?

Pull the other one.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well, I can say it is a historic object, if there is people that consider Jesus a divine being it gets religious meaning, but for the humanity in general is the burial cloth of a major figure that defines the western civilization, although he as a man was really a middle east figure.

Now, let me point that considering it from a religious aspect, I can understand why this becomes a huge controversy, because there is people that approach to it not as a part of History but thinking in his likes or dislikes about the figure it is connected with.

I found that the Anti Christian prejudgments of people that are trying to attack the Shroud dating are also interesting, from a psychological point of view, because they show that the most grave bias in its analysis is no the one tied to the limitations of what it was the C14 thirty years ago, it is the idea that the Shroud could be come an object of cult.

I personally think that the Shroud is a very interesting Historic object, because it refers to a period that determines the beginning of our era and refers to a person that in spite of all the hatred he can inspire in some fanatic people is no doubt a protagonist of History and has a tremendous positive legacy in our civilization.

That is what attracts my attention as a Scientist to it, those are considerations that have nothing to do with religion.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

What a load of twaddle.

If you were truly interested in the science side of it, you wouldn't post falsehoods about the C14 dating.

All you're interested in is proving jesus is real because of your RELIGION.

Historically, it's a medieval cloth with the (badly formed) image of an unknown white guy.
edit on 2412017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Truth is through whether its authentic or disingenuous matters little as to it being part of history.

Ask anyone through and they will say "the Turin Shroud, that's a religious artifact" not "the Turin Shroud, that's a historical artifact".

You cannot take the religious context out of the equation or its simply a piece of cloth with the resemblance of a Mans face on it.

Hence this is indeed about religion, or at least possible Pareidolia related religious interpretation.

edit on 24-1-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79:
If you were truly interested in the science side of it, you wouldn't post falsehoods about the C14 dating.


That is a really bold and malicious accusation from your side, it explains perfectly to the average reader of this forum an thread why I am very skeptic to take seriously your replies, because some of your claims are so irresponsible.

Since the time this technique was first proposed for dating in 1948 by Dr. W.F. Libby at the University of Chicago, many important discoveries have changed dramatically our understanding of that process to understand its actual limitations.

Today there is even so serious research that has proven that the exhaustive use of our fossil fuels in our modern civilization is altering the dating with C14 causing considerable bias, that is a major worry in sciences like Archaeology.

I think you are the one that must educate a little better on Chemistry before to launch such a bold attacks against the ethics of people in the Scientific community. The knowledge that C14 can lead to wrong dating is well known by many scientists in cases that have nothing to do with the Shroud.

Please read:

www.theblaze.com...

www.rationalskepticism.org...

www.scienceforums.net...

If dating of organic remains of many thousand of years are affected by the levels of pollution of Carbon dioxide we have right now it is not absurd at all to weight in its correct proportion the impact of the various fires we know by sure occurred in the History of the Shroud, one of them even destroyed part of the object, there are so visible holes on it, although there has been a patching of them by restorers.

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

All you ever do is rant and point fingers. Give it a rest already.

As for the shroud? It's been scientifically proven to be from medieval times. Deal with it.

Oh wait. You can't. Religiously you NEED it to be from the 1st century AD to prove jesus existed.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well, if you are falsely accusing me of some sort of ideological bias, just only because I brought the papers of these Italian Scientists that have even published it in scientific conferences and Journals since 2003, it is clear you are doing so also against them and their Universities isnt't it?

Either if you want to accept or Not we have a much recent dating of the Shroud that shows it comes from a time between 300 BC and 400 AD and it is entirely based on chemical and mechanical tests of filaments taken from that cloth in 1978.

This is published not only here or in scientific publications has been disclosed in many of the most prestigious News papers of the world, like the Washington Post.

Pls read

New Testing dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ

Dr Gioulio Fanti and his colleagues are all faculty members of extremely reputed Universities of Europe, they have affiliations that are measure of seriousness and success in their careers, that is what cause the attention of scientists like me in America about their work.

They are not the first ones to have showed that data like the one taken 30 years ago from the shroud is useless for dating purposes.

In General and in todays standards to eliminate outliers of the data, as it was done by the three laboratories of 1988 with the most extreme dates they found, the ones that were centuries apart each one from the other is no longer considered very professional in this kind of dating maneuvers.

If you or anybody else in the forum wants to confirm that here is something you must read, scientific literature coming from University of Oxford about it:

c14.arch.ox.ac.uk...

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I've already linked to an interview which puts your "the C14 dating for the shroud is wrong" to rest. You religious bias won't accept it though.

The ONLY thing you accept is anything that says the shroud is from the 1st century, because then it "proves" jesus was real. Otherwise you would accept the science that has proven it to be from the medieval times and not use articles that are made up and make up your own idea of what something says.

Like I (and others) have already said, this thread isn't about science. It's about "proving" the shroud is from the 1st century ad so you can "prove" jesus is real. That makes it religious.

And this bit


300 BC and 400 AD


Is you making stuff up again.

The tests showed 400ad +- 400 years. That's means 0-800ad. Simple maths really.
edit on 2412017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

This is something that does not have nothing to do with any kind of hypothetical ideological ideas you try to attribute to me, I could be in the editorial team of any Science Journal and you would be saying exactly the same absurdities about my motivations because You don't like the conclusions those scientists have arrived to, that is what you don't want to face it.

This is widely published in the world so don't waste your time in to launch more darts or personal attacks against me, by discrediting me you are not going to reach your goal, because anyway the information is public domain and it is endorsed by reputed Universities and Science publications.

Pls check:
www.aimeta.dicam.unibo.it...

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I've already shown where either your tests DONT show what you say, or the links you've put also are unrelated to the shroud.

C14 AND OTHER tests have shown the date of the shroud. But you and other people vested in the shroud, ignore it all until it gets a date you and they want.

But you keep up with your rants about how it's not religious. I'm sure 1 person might eventually believe you.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I tried to feel respect for your position, but You can't hide this research and discovery with your hands.

You can't control that the people in general know and discuss it, you can't force everybody to remain stuck in the technology or science of late 1980s only because you are so.

I am sorry if you feel that the tests and results of G. Fanti and colleagues are your root square of 2 that you must prevent to be known since it makes fall apart your entire personal system of ideas to understand reality.

The forum is not to make people feel comfortable but to be informed about Science.

The Angel of Lightness



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Here a link that shows of a published version of very important conference paper of G.Fanti et Al, about the C14 of the Shroud.

it is clear that he has asked at least since 2008 for another C14 testing of the Shroud following better professional standards, considering all the possibilities of contamination that the object has and so following protocols adjusted to them.

This paper is the best evidence that the motivations of Dr Fanti are not other than to clarify the issue beyond any reasonable doubt, to arrive
to the truth.

If he was forced to develop an entirely different set of chemical and mechanical tests to carry out a new dating of the object is not because
he is afraid of the results of a new C14 examination, with technology of our time, but because there is reserve from the experts in charge of its preservation into continue performing more destructive tests on it.

Please check:

www.ohioshroudconference.com...

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I've not hidden anything. I've shown where you're wrong and you draw FALSE conclusions and make things up.

You can't do any tests AFTER those C14 tests because they will give back false reading BECAUSE of the way it was preserved by your precious shroud society. But this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times, yet you just conveniently ignore it.
edit on 2412017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Actually it really makes no sense to accuse anyone of hiding anything.

A point being that issues have been brought up that your position is refutable. That you want to right your own paper as your state you are a scientist is fine all you need to do is access the material available and run your own test. Seriously
Gravity theory is still called a theory for a reason.

You do not have enough evidence to insist this is real seriously and to be honest much of your commentary is equivalent to an infomercial in all sincerity.

That's not how science works if it were whenever the Vatican decided to confirm a Saint there would be a PDF file on the results in Nature in all sincerity.

In relation to my upbringing I was also an alter boy during Easter Ceremonies at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, Illinois.

What your trying to do impress us with the idea that you by posting this information have access to information that should be considered an absolute.

The problem is despite your efforts to impress us with your impression of the data you are offering, which is fine if in fact every other possibility has been ruled out.



Rule-out

rule-out Clinical decision-making verb To eliminate as a serious diagnostic consideration, as in to 'rule out' the presence of acute MI; the term that has long had currency as a verb, but more recently has been popularized as a noun, as in a Pt–a 'rule out' whose medical condition is a diagnostic dilemma.


medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The matter is inherent whether or not the point is a patient or a phenomenon.

In definition it concludes as a mater of semantics either way.










edit on 24-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Dear markosity1973

I owe you an apology, I really think yours was one of the most interesting replies on the last day or so in this thread. I think the video you brought also is entirely relevant and that shows that the problems of the C14 dating of 1988 were detected since really long time ago and from multiple different researchers analyzing it.

Sorry but there is people that think the thread is just for their use and they reply systematically in a way that unfortunately steals to much of attention to their opinions or ideas, thinking that with rhetoric they are going to gain points when it is clear that what we need here is posts that contain actual references, links to relevant materials, or to scientific papers in the subject.

Thanks for your comment and for that nice video, in particular for underlining the material damage that the cloth has suffered as consequence of the fires it was exposed to, they are key to understand why it is logical to talk about contamination on it altering the natural profile of decay of C14 on it.

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 1/24/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Care to show where the C14 testing of 1988 was wrong?

Before you do, here is an article (that I've posted twice and krazysh0t posted in 2015) countering all of your points about the tests done. And of particular interest is this...



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.


Also, as phage pointed out before in regards to the article titled ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING...

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.


1300 years is a bit more than "slightly".
edit on 2412017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join