reply to post by adjensen
Did you read the website that was linked to by Charles1952? One of the points that it makes is that, when the shroud is examined by using 20th
Century forensic techniques, it reveals details that would only be known by 20th Century forensic techniques. So the concept of forgery becomes a
difficult one, unless the forger were a 20th Century forensic technician, which we know is not the case.
Regardless of the techniques used today, tomorrow, or the next century, the shroud is the shroud. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how it was
made. Does carbon dating only apply to things after the invention of the technique? No. Should a Medieval forgery be only unearthed using methods and
thinking known to Medieval man? No.
How would someone in the Sixteenth Century be aware of the fact that a certain medical condition would result from a specific mode of
punishment? Or do you believe that the forger actually scourged someone in order to use their blood on the shroud? If you do, what is your explanation
of their rationale, given that medical science of that time had no understanding of the nature of blood?
Your line of reasoning is that someone checked to see if there was real blood there. They got results that they conclude are consistent with a wound
type. Then you suppose that the forger must have been aware of modern science. That's a non sequitur.
There was a crusade going on. What if a dead person was used? What if a person was killed to make the shroud?
Why would anyone think to do that? If they were faking the scourge markings, what possible reason would they have to consistently do it in such
a manner as to leave indications of physical differences between two different scourgers? Or, if you think that the forger actually had someone
scourged to physically make the image, why have two people do it?
You are over thinking the problem. It's simple. You get a body. Maybe its a criminal or someone who died of disease or a victim of war or whatever.
You whack up the body according to the bible. Then you get the image to transfer to a cloth. Next you sell it to the crusaders who are looking for
things to take home.
Claiming that someone in the 20th Century can duplicate the image does absolutely nothing to further the argument that it is a 16th Century
forgery, without a valid explanation for the points raised on Charles1952's page (Link here, in case you missed it.)
Once again, we cannot use science to only prove the points that we would like to be true.
You're not using science. You are using a illogical argument that someone creating a forgery would not try to make it look realistic. How silly is
Look at the first 3 so-called facts at the top of the link
1. The sheet has a size which was a common size used for a long time in that area.
2. The weaving style is a type known for a long time in that area
3. Pollen shows that the shroud was once in the Middle East
At best those facts show that the shroud is probably no older than the first century and might be more recent.
Later on C-14 dating is discussed and part of that mentions that not all labs get the same results when testing. Not the case here. They end up
focusing on a possible issue which is not shown to be an issue, only a possibility.
The conclusion at the end of the document is flawed because "The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was
flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. " is an untested
hypothesis and appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the author.
edit on 29-3-2013 by stereologist because: (no reason given)