Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you get defensive when people are arguing contrary to your opinions?

Yea know its a big world with lots of different opinions and perspectives. We already know how you feel and that Jesus didn't exist. If your evidence against the shroud is so solid then the truth will make itself present, why all the hostility?

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: aorAki

no serious scholar doubts Jesus existed historically… and the scholarship, archeology and history is very convincing…

That is patently not true.
Both the comment about serious scholars and the comment about the scholarship, archaeology and history are entirely unconvincing!

Aha! Thank you windword

a reply to: JDmOKI

Dear JDmOKI

Yes, it seems we are witnessing a sort of cybernetic verbal attack of the most low level against the thread, just because there are no really solid scientific arguments to use against the statistical methods used by the team leaded by Dr Giulio Fanti to show that evidently there is no way that a well carried radio Carbon Testing can get the kind of tolerance to error that the one of 1988 over a sample of the shroud produced.

When a person come here with no elements at all of good mathematics or Statistics to contribute to the discussion but to say that Dr Fanti is "massaging numbers" that gives a clear idea of how poor is the level of analysis it is in behind.

Any Statistician can become at least intrigued when errors of more than two standard deviations among the results of one of the laboratories compared with the others appear, and this exactly the case we have here, just reading the numbers published by them.

Now, I think it is important to clarify that these Italian Scientists that have been working with the University of London in this particular research project were not the first to detect the inconsistences that were present on the results, they perhaps are the very first to try to overcome them and formulate an alternative way to go around the contamination of the material.

In 1997, Remi Van Haelst, a Belgium Chemist, conducted a series of statistical analyses that strongly challenged the veracity of the conclusions of the dating. This is a person that by the way is expert on C14 dating techniques for his entire career.

Significantly, he found serious disparities in measurements between the three laboratories and between the sub-samples (various tests and observations performed by the labs).

Bryan Walsh, a Statistician, examined Van Haelst’s work and further studied the measurements. The essential conclusions were that the samples, and indeed the divided samples used in multiple tests, contained different levels of the C14 isotope.

The differences were sufficient to conclude that the sample were non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth.

His methods include not only the Anova that I have already mentioned, but after the irregularities were detected he went far beyond carrying out more sophisticate counter tests to confirm what he suspected, his work included exhaustive analysis of Hypothesis with Chi square test, F test, t test.

Here some of the technical Papers in this subject of this Chemist:

2001 The validity of the 1988 Shroud sampling

www.shroud.it...

1998 RADIOCARBON DATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN THE NATURE REPORT

www.shroud.com...

2002 Radio Carbon dating the Shroud of Turin - A critical review of the Nature Report with complete unbiased statistical analysis.

www.sindone.info...

ANOVA, a Robust Method to Evaluate AMS Radiocarbon Data

www.acheiropoietos.info...

If you or any other member wants to know more about other Statisticians that criticized the official results of the test of 1989 please refer to:

www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Well Dear Verum1quaere, I understand perfectly how disappointing is all this rhetoric based on to try to deny what is already History.

Now, I think the forum cant tolerate as acceptable in this discussion more attempts to deviate the discussion into the well known skeptical obsession to debate the historicity of Jesus Christ.

I think we all deserve respect, that is clearly off topic, it has nothing to do with Parapsychology at all and of course nothing at all with statistical analysis on how to carry c14 testing on an object that is many centuries old.

We all live in the western civilization, and either a person likes or dislikes the idea, this is a civilization that for many centuries was built over the inheritance of the Roman empire that became Christianized after the IV century of the common Era.

The emperor Constantine who decided to do that important step had at hand entire teams of Historians and also actual civil records in Roman Archives to validate what he was deciding.

Princes, Kings and Emperors were by generations crowned under the authority granted in the name of a Church that good or bad trace back its origins toward Jesus Christ.

America was discovered by Europeans in a Trip of Christopher Columbus that was sponsored by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, Carlo Magnus integrated first time the European Union in the name of Christ as well as this country was first time visited by Europeans who were puritans that were all Christians looking for a place to continue practicing their beliefs in peace in the XVII century.

If all these events were part of Myth , is absolutely irrelevant because they are all are part of the History, in the same way that once there was somebody that inspired the Legend of Jesus. For Historians it is not meaningful if it was true or false that Napoleon used to put his right hand inside the Jacket because he had stomach ulcer or since he couldn't find a belt that best fit his pants, what matters is that he was Emperor of France.

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light


It seems to me that you are approaching from Franti's position as well, without having first verified the existence of Christ.
That would be an important first step, would it not?

a reply to: The angel of light

Angel... You are being intellectually dishonest!

You are acting the martyr for this thread and ignoring valid objections.

Just from a brief read of Fanti's experiments, there are many glaring issues with his methodology.

*He is starting from a point of confirmation bias.
*He isn't looking at the data objectively, rather he is looking for data to confirm his pre-existing views.
*He suggests the 1988 tests excluded statistical outliers, using those outliers as a starting point for his own experiments... then hypocritically excludes inconvenient outliers in his own methodology.
*The samples he uses in his experiments are extremely compromised, and not even certain they were from the shroud, they were vacuumed up with detritus where the shroud used to be hung (hasn't been there for years), along with dust from other exhibits and centuries of accumulation... completely jeopardizing their validity.
*His book is not peer reviewed, as his results are unverifiable, and unscientific.
*His book is about profit not good science.
*He has a reputation for theoscience, and has tried in the past to pass off theocracy as science.

.... I could go on...

He is a totally unreliable source, and his methodologies are shoddy.

There is no proof presented in his work... Just a series of probabilities that he has massaged to fit his views.

How about you respond to some of these issues and don't state that no-one can refute his claims... It's completely untrue.

a reply to: aorAki

Dear aorAki,

I respect your beliefs or preconceptions on that other theme, but this is not the space neither the moment to continue arguing about something that is part of other problem, there are ATS forums to debate religions conspiracies by the way.

So excuse me If I make feel uncomfortable you or other skeptical members of ATS, but if somebody wants to claim that the earth is actually the center of the Universe or it is flat or that actually the man never arrived to the moon or that Elvis Presley is still alive somewhere possibly under the free speech act is allowed to think that way, but in your privacy.

Everybody can have doubts about anything, as well as everything is possible in the novels of Jose Zaramago or Garcia Marquez, but that is absolutely out of place in a serious academic discussion when we are talking of a Historic Object that is pretty real.


The Shroud of Turin is not an abstraction, is pretty material, a lot of experts have had access to it and can confirm that it actually exists and there are records of it in the western Europe since the XIII century.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

... Since the 13th century... No mention of it before that period... Almost as if it first came into existence around that time (forgery?).

Seems quite telling... Ever heard of Occam's razor?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Dear puzzlesphere, excuse me but it is evident that you need a good course of History of the Christendom.

I was clearly referring only to the Historic records that correspond to the western Europe, because the previous one belong the Bizantine Empire and in that context this same object would be called The Holy Mandylion or the Image of Edessa, depending of the epoch, that actually existed, according with civil and church records.

These what those records provide about the way in which the Shroud came from Palestine to North Italy through France, Greece, Turkey and Syria: ( again please understand that is not my Theory, it is what Historians have researched on the topic)

The image of Edessa was owned by the King Abgar of Edessa, today Turkey, in the 1st century of the common era:

Eusebios of Cesarea in the third century wrote the first written version of its history:

In his History of the Church (1.13.5-1.13.22). Eusebius claimed that he had transcribed and translated the actual letter in the Syriac chancery documents of the king of Edessa. This records a letter written by King Abgar of Edessa to Jesus, asking him to come cure him of an illness. Jesus replies by letter, saying that when he had completed his earthly mission and ascended to heaven, he would send a disciple to heal Abgar (and does so).

en.wikipedia.org...

It was the disciple St Jude, the same Saint patron of the Children hospitals in America, called later Thaddeus of Edessa, who was commissioned to visit the king. He was the one to bring the image of Jesus in a cloth to the King. If you check all the images that are made until our days of that Saint shows him carrying in his chest an object with the face of Christ stamped on it.

en.wikipedia.org...

First mention of the Edessa Image after that time is on the 384 AD when Egeria a woman French pilgrim visited Edessa an in a tour were allowed to see it.

There is a book that describe her trips:

Egeria Gaulian Pilgrim to middle east.

The Edessa image is also referred again on the 593 year of the common Era in the Evagrius Scholasticus:

en.wikipedia.org...

This Shroud was then moved by the byzantine troops toward Contantinople along the centuries of the Persian Sasanide expansion in the eastern Mediterranean.

One evidence of this trip is the existence of another object called the Keramidion, dated in the century 6th or 7th, that was a copy of the face of Christ on it , that it is believed was miracously stamped by simple contact with the Edessa Cloth or the Mandylion. This is a tile that is now preserved in the Caucasus in the monastery of Ancha in Georgia.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the year 944 the Bizantines brought the Mandylion to Constantinople , today Istanbul Turkey, where it was kept in the Holy Sophia Cathedral.

www.shroud2000.com...

It was from there that the French Templar knights would have taken it during the IV crusade. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors, but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.

Geoffroi de Charny, French knight who is certified, even with coins of the epoch ,that owned the Shroud of Turin in the XIII century was nephew of another Geoffroi de Charny, that was a Templar and who went with Oton the la Roche to Constantinople in the crusade he took part in. The Templar knight Oton the La Roche was the first westerner who saw the Mandylion in public exhibition every Friday's Prayer in Istambul in 1204. He is also the first person that it is known owned the Shroud of Turin in France.

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

Thanks for your interesting question,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

You're being intellectually dishonest again.

Your post suggests that there is evidence of the shroud before the 13th century, linking it to the Edessa Image in a rambling post that tries to tie disparate facts together.

That is entirely unfounded.

How about answering any of the issues I raised in my post concerning Fanti, rather than babbling about completely unproved and unrelated content... Cherry picking the answers you want to respond to is not a respectful way of discussion.

Your confirmation bias, and avoidance tactics are eroding your stance.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Dear JDmOKI,

I found sincerely your comment very accurate, it is really a so intelligent observation. We are seeing how people that is not contributing at all with anything that represents really historical, technical or scientific discussion of paranormal events that are coming here to release personal attacks against whoever don't share their same opinions.

When a person is talking with the truth does not need to insult the honesty or honor of anybody else to show his point, in the same way there is no need to be cynical to discredit others comments using harassment strategies.

One can be in the antipodes of the intellectual thinking to disagree with others , and be able to express it without launching verbal attacks that only show lack of decorum in the communication.

Thanks to help to put order here.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Your faux outrage and passive aggressive responses are actually quite common tactics for not answering the questions at hand, namely: if the historicity of Christ is not confirmed, then the shroud cannot be confirmed as having been in contact with the body of Christ.

I know the shroud is a real object. That is not up for debate. What is up for debate is whether there is any record of it prior to the 13th Century C.E.

a reply to: Abednego

Dear Abednego,

I personally don't think that the theory of the radiation of neutrons released by the earthquake of the of April 3th, 33th AD in Palestine, the precise day of the death of Jesus Christ, producing the faded image on the shroud is likely to be true.

redskynews.com...

blog.bibleplaces.com...

I also agree that if that might be case there would be dozens of other examples found in tombs around that same area, or any other seismic area where civilization appeared thousands of years ago.

I mentioned that theory since definitively the faded image, that it is confirmed is not painted, is really intriguing and defy many possible explanations. There are authors of popular books, look like cheap sensationalist Da vinci Code literature, that have dared to suggest that is a "medieval photography", but again why there are no other photographs of that same period?

Although Leonardo Da vinci was born a century after the first documented appearance of the cloth, supporters of this irresponsible hypothesis proposed that the original cloth was an inferior fake, which was replaced with a superior hoax created by Leonardo. However, no contemporaneous reports indicate a sudden change in the quality of the image.

The theory of the Davinci origin of the shroud itself is disgusting, a clear racist anti-Latin culture plot created not only to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, but also trying to reduce to the level of a dishonest scammer the most important Italian Scientist and Artist of all times, a devoted wise man that showed solid ethical values all his life.

Now, what is really intriguing is the image of Christ in the shroud shows not only the external anatomy of the body, but details that correspond to the internal structure, like bones or nerves, in other words look more like a X ray plate than a photography.

Here some links that refer to that amazing aspect of this object:

Prof Alan Whanger observed that in the face the sinuses were visible and also part of the teeth. In the image of the hands, the metacarpalia are visible like on an X-Ray photograph. It seems that part of the “energy” that caused the image had long wavelength X-Ray properties.

Pls check: shroud3d.com...

This is one of the qualities of the cloth that definitively suggest probable paranormal activity on its creation, under the action of some kind of mysterious radiation.

The recent discovery of a second image of the face of Christ in the reverse of the Shroud, that normally has been covered along the centuries by another piece of Cloth sewed to it, supports the theory of formation by radiation:

iopscience.iop.org...

Thanks for your comment,

please excuse my delay to respond your post,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: aorAki

But debating the existence of Christ is avoiding the debate that the OP is trying so desperately to conduct with members of the ATS community and is not the debate intended. Although you may feel that it is indeed essential to debate properly, that type of evidence is almost impossible to achieve hence the shroud being so important.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Dear Chisfishenstein,

What you point is completely true, who is skeptical is unlikely that can change his mind on this subject whatsoever evidences can appear supporting the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Christ, and of course is not going to accept the religious tradition as a reliable source.

According with the tradition of the Latin, Coptic and Orthodox Churches there is agreement that there were four clothes that actually touched Christ face, and so have either its image stamped in a supernatural way ( acheiropoietos) or his blood.

1) The Saint Sudarium ( Oviedo cloth)
2) The Holy Mandylion ( the Shroud)
3) The Veil of Veronica ( the Camulia o Manopello Veil )
4) The napkin or handkerchief given to Annan ( the Genoa Veil )

It is precisely in the tradition of the church that many important aspects of the secret history around these relics can be found. This is perhaps the only way to know by sure how to trace back their path in between Palestine 1st Century, and the moment in which first time they were seen in Europe.

About the St Sudarium, the church's history archives say that it corresponds to one of those two clothes described in the Gospels to have found by St Peter and St John in the empty tomb, the small one that covered the head of Christ, that arrived in 616 AD to Cartagena Spain, from which it is moved in the 718 AD to Toledo and then finally to Oviedo in 1075 AD.

On Veronica's veil it is well documented that The Bizantine Emperor Justiniane II brought it from Palestine to Camulia, today Kayseri, Turkey, in the year 692 and in the 705 the Patriarch Callinicus moved it to Rome. The origin of this veil is slightly suggested in (St. Luke 8:43-48) but is fully described in the traditions of the church, as been used by that same woman years later to cure Emperor Tiberius.

irenikontheskete.blogspot.com...

Concerning the Shroud, we need to use again the tradition of the church as source. The answer to that question could be present since centuries ago precisely in the altar of any Church in the world, or in the private altar of many people that have devotion for St Jude Thaddeus, since he would be the most linked among the disciples of Christ to the shroud according with some ancient tradition.

Any person that is familiar to the traditional iconography of this Saint, that has not changed along the centuries, can recognize that he is always depicted with a kind of Jesus big portrait hanging from his neck, something that sometimes look as an extremely big medallion, but also can be a folded piece of cloth.

The reason for that depiction is based on the tradition of the Church, also recorded in one minor gospel of the second canon whose eldest known copy is dated on the VI or VII century, that he visited the King Abgar of Edessa, who suffered Leprosy, carrying in his luggage folded the Holy Mandylion, to heal his host. So chances are that he was who brought the Shroud to eastern Turkey. At least this is what is mentioned in one of the two versions of the legend, the one that involves the disciple.

taylormarshall.com...

There is other legend that suggests that there would be in addition to the clothes already mentioned other image of Christ miraculously stamped that was given by Jesus to a person called Hannan and that he brought later into Syria. ( This is registered on the Doctrine of Addai, a Syriac Christian text written by a disciple of Thomas the Apostle )

www.apostle1.com...

This napkin size miraculous stamped image of Christ was possibly kept for centuries in other region within the boundaries of the old byzantine empire. This is supported by the fact that there are very old frescoes in the region of Vologda, Russia , where it is clearly depicted, at The St. Ferapont Belozero Monastery of the Virgin Nativity that was set up at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries.

www.dionisy.com...

Now, since the original cloth has not been found in Russia, perhaps this other image also could be brought in some way from Eastern Europe to western Italy and corresponds to the face of Genoa, kept in the church of St. Bartholomew of the Armenians in that city.

slaveoftheimmaculate.wordpress.com...

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

So the tradition of the Church that is extremely rich, since has been kept along centuries by people of simple faith, sometimes is an extremely important source of information to solve ancient mysteries for the researchers that have open mind.

Thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: JDmOKI

Hostility? There is no hostility. I just don't care about his opinions on Jesus in a thread talking about if the Shroud of Turin is real or not. It is off topic and I don't like being preached at. If you noticed, I never questioned Jesus' existence. I just addressed the Shroud as that is what the topic is about. Not emotional baggage about how great Jesus is. That doesn't prove the Shroud is real or not. I'm here to discuss the evidence and have the right to dismiss irrelevant evidence. Are you here to discuss the topic or discuss me?

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

Dear JDmOKI

Yes, it seems we are witnessing a sort of cybernetic verbal attack of the most low level against the thread, just because there are no really solid scientific arguments to use against the statistical methods used by the team leaded by Dr Giulio Fanti to show that evidently there is no way that a well carried radio Carbon Testing can get the kind of tolerance to error that the one of 1988 over a sample of the shroud produced.

I haven't seen you refute any of the evidence I've brought to the thread and continue to echo the same stuff over and over.

a reply to: The angel of light


Are these shroud guys just sending out clippings to anyone in hopes of getting a result that siatifies their time-line? I thought this thing was proven a fake, (that it, it was proven to be not the shroud of Christ), a ong time ago. I guess there's no substitute for blind faith, huh?

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you get defensive when people are arguing contrary to your opinions?

Yea know its a big world with lots of different opinions and perspectives. We already know how you feel and that Jesus didn't exist. If your evidence against the shroud is so solid then the truth will make itself present, why all the hostility?

The evidence against the shroud pales in comparison to one simple fact.
Mankind, the most intelligent being on the planet, can not reproduce, the image on the shroud.
That leaves only aliens, which is certainly biased in the light of scripture.
So, deduce that. And toss in the house of Jesus. To say Jesus Christ never
existed, is daft. Pure B.S. Biased. Disinformation. Catering to a certain
crowd for their money.

And the hostility is always obvious because people have invested their
very souls. And are to prideful to turn around and think clearly. They
don't realise that even that, is another A+ for scripture.
And that's how God does things

Right here! On ATS!

SnF for betting on the right pony or in this case ass.

a reply to: randyvs

So that ONE hole in the forgery logic is enough to overturn tons of other evidence that point to it being a forgery. Nope. Because we don't know how the image was made, we have to admit that it is supernatural. That is a ridiculous argument.