a reply to: noonebutme
Ha ha ha, this must be a joke isn't it? but of very weird taste, you are just recycling fake news from 1390, bringing them here as a "conclusive
verdict" of a supposed forgery?!
Neither the Bishop Pierre d’Arcis nor his predecessor Henry of Poitiers were ever appointed by Pope Clement VII, who certainly believed the relic
might be authentic, as official Holy see investigators on any supposed fraud, there is no single document signed by the Pope given to them such a
The letters your link reproduce were spontaneously written by the French Bishops moved by their obvious jealousy over the decrease on their collection
of donations to their Cathedral that they attributed to the crowds Pilgrims going to Lirey instead to visit the Holy Shroud.
The motifs of the French bishops are so evident, they couldn't obtain custody on the relic, they even menaced under penalty of excommunication members
of the Charny Family to surrender the relic to them and since their blackmailing couldn't work they decided to manufacture the case of forgery to
None of the letters of two Bishops where they insist the relic was falsified they mention any Artist at all, What an omission isnt it? they even
said to know the Artist but they never gave his name at all, the most conclusive data was never disclosed at all in their long written communications
to the Pope that were full of intrigue tone.
Anybody that know the multiple violations of scientific protocols committed by the laboratories that tested three times the same only sample taken
against recommendations clearly stated to so by multiple scientists from a corner that had repairs of centuries in the Shroud can see that their
results were suspicious of to be biased.
“There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is
certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of
the available scientific and historical information” —Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in
the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (March 2008)
The Biggest C14 Mistake Ever
“[T]he age-dating process [in 1988] failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for
characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses
of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” —Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (August
But lets assume that at least something of what it was done in 1988 was correctly performed, if we check their own report at least one of the four
subsamples that they dated gave to the relic an age of 1,964 ± 20 years, you can see that on Arizona, London and Zurich reported data, of course the
other dates are not giving that range but why so much variance in between one and the others?
Sample Mean Date (yr BP) Calendar date ranges
1* 691 ± 31 68% AD 1273 - 1288
95% AD 1262 - 1312, 1353 - 1384 cal
2 ** 937 ± 16 68% AD 1032 - 1048, 1089 - 1119, 1142 - 1154 cal
95% AD 1026 - 1160 cal
3** 1,964 ± 20*** 68% AD 11-64 cal 95% 9 cal BC - AD 78 cal
4** 724 ± 20 68% AD 1268 - 1278 cal
95% AD 1263 - 1283 cal
Official Data report from 1988 C14 Shroud Dating
Politics on the C14 Dating of Shroud Joseph
1988 October. A few days before the dating, Meacham composed a letter to the British Museum, which he copied to STURP, Gonella and several news
agencies, in which he wrote, “In sum, the British Museum has much to answer for in its involvement:
1.) Why did it acquiesce in the reduction of samples to be taken from seven to three, against the recommendation of the Turin Commission?
2.) Why did it agree to the elimination of the small counter laboratories, which employ a more reliable counting system?
3.) Why did it agree to only one sampling site, thereby raising the possibility of an anomalous zone being dated?
4.) Why did it agree to the sampling of a scorched area of the cloth, again in conflict with the recommendation of the Turin Commission?
5.) Did it approve the choice of a textile ‘expert’? And is it satisfied that his visual inspection of the sampled area is sufficient to rule out
any possibility of a restoration/re-weaving of that area?
6.) Why did it not follow its own guidelines in the inter-comparison experiment and insist that samples be taken well away from selvedges? Or is 2-3
cm. considered to be ‘well away’?
In 1982, as part of a recommendation the holy see was asking from a laboratory in charge of establish procedures of preservation of the relic, in
request of John Heller on a Nuclear Physics facility of the University of California at Berkeley two threads of the Shroud were C14 tested secretly ,
the results showed the effect of high contamination on the cloth, but both of them were revealing an age of even thousands of years.
Thread #1 700 BC to 200 AD
Thread #2 200 AD to 1000 AD.
Radio Carbon Dating carried out in California 1982
Guided from those results in 1986 in a special meeting on the Holy see scientists recommended that any minimally acceptable C14 dating on the relic
must be done taking samples of several different points from the cloth, to be able to avoid the contamination found on it.
1986 Recommendations that were
bypassed on how to C14 test the Shroud
Since 1997 a panel of scientists of a British University in conjunction of three of the most reputed Italian Universities proved that the 1987 C14
data does not resist a Statistical Analysis for abnormal behavior in the data variance.
Critical Statistical Analysis of 1988 C14 Dating of Shroud
In 2011 the same panel carried out a new dating using a new not destructive techniques based on spectroscopy and micromechanical properties of the
cloth that show the relic is as old as from 300 BC to 400 AD.
MicroMechanical properties Analsys of Shroud fibers to date it
Mechanical and Opto Chemical Dating of Turin
You can Not be serious if you think a body that was carried in a Shroud by walking from the place of execution hundreds of meters to the tomb can
Not show different flows of blood, need not multiple manipulations of a Manikin with synthetic blood to try to get fame at expense of the relic
speculating about them.
The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/6/2018 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)