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.
... techniques that even in our time are extremely advance technology ( images created through radiation ) ...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So just a heads up. The original dating test of the shroud was SANCTIONED by the Catholic Church. It wasn't until AFTER the results came back saying it wasn't dated back to the time of Jesus that all these stupid claims about the accuracy of the test came back.
St John 20, 5-6
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there,
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So just a heads up. The original dating test of the shroud was SANCTIONED by the Catholic Church. It wasn't until AFTER the results came back saying it wasn't dated back to the time of Jesus that all these stupid claims about the accuracy of the test came back.
I agree with you that it does not matter in the long run, but the fact that the test was "sanctioned" and objections came "after" the results, both words you emphasized, has no bearing on the matter. The issue is not "stupid," but reflects a real bona fide objection. Deriding the issue with sarcasm is also illogical. The test was badly handled from the beginning. Given the importance of this it is mystifying why the experimenters screwed up so badly.
I do not think for one minute that C-14 tests are generally invalid. The test works well, especially for stuff less than 50,000 years old. Trying to discredit C-14 in general is what is a stupid move here. The issue is what part of the cloth they tested. And if they tested a part of the cloth that had undergone repairs, then it is they who screwed up--not the C-14 test.
originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: dragonridr
You know the rules here , they were stated clearly since the opening post, if you come with an argument in favor or against any of the tests you need to provide actual sources, references or links.
Sorry, but to accept your claim here means that you are in position to prove it, by bringing something more solid than statements , or to at least provide a reference to somebody else, a researcher, that is trying to prove it.