not delberately lying but mistaken. I cannot see how those blurry orange areas could be 2000 year old blood anyway.So you are basically suggesting that all the scients, forensics and Universities (most of them comoletly secular sources by the way) that conclusively determined that there is blood on the shroud and that DNA resulta that were done again by a secular source are lying based solely on one particular behavior that you personally believe the Vatican had?
Also where you present there watching to accurately represent that the blood was vaccummed?
And yet the people who made the comments on the blood may be perhaps more qualified than we lay folk on the matter.not delberately lying but mistaken. I cannot see how those blurry orange areas could be 2000 year old blood anyway.
I tend to go with science in this because the C14 dating was done by 3 labs and all with similar results.
So yoyvare suggesting that about 50 different tests done all at completely different places and about 100 different scientist are mistaken and three different schools (including NYU) in something that is as easy in today’s science as determining if something is a blood test?not delberately lying but mistaken. I cannot see how those blurry orange areas could be 2000 year old blood anyway.
I tend to go with science in this because the C14 dating was done by 3bs and all with similar results.
GK,the dating of an artifact is crucial.All the other tests are of no concern because they are working toward a preconceived conclusion. Like I said just because we dont fully understand how the artist created the image does not make it automatically the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.And yet the people who made the comments on the blood may be perhaps more qualified than we lay folk on the matter.
That 3 labs would get similar results, on the assumption (quite valid) that all were working on the same thing, is not remarkable. Replicability is a keystone of science.
Question is, as Rogers brought up, what were those labs, in fact, analyzing.
Folks, including folks with actual credentials in the subject area, differ on that. Which makes it a little blinkered to say that one conclusion is science, the other, something else.
GKC
Depends on what the C14 test was dating. And that is a reasonable question to ask. If you don’t ask it, given the possibilities, you’'re working toward a preconceived conclusionGK,the dating of an artifact is crucial.All the other tests are of no concern because they are working toward a preconceived conclusion. Like I said just because we dont fully understand how the artist created the image does not make it automatically the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
If the C14 dating says the linen was created around 1200 years after Jesus death that seems reasonable to me.
GK start researching WHY Rogers suddenly became interested again almost 15 years after the conclusive C14 tests and you will understand my extreme skepticism.Depends on what the C14 test was dating. And that is a reasonable question to ask. If you don’t ask it, given the possibilities, you’'re working toward a preconceived conclusion
From my reading on the Shroud, over the years, which I would assume was more in depth and wider than yours, starting around the early 70s, I would not characterize the studies as working toward a preconceived conclusion. And that is so from either side.
I don’t read much on it, anymore. But always willing to take a look at a new fact or interpretation. Rogers’ was the last such that caught my eye.
Folks differ on this. There are lots of subjects like that, in history.
GKC
I have watched the cutting. Years back.GK start researching WHY Rogers suddenly became interested again almost 15 years after the conclusive C14 tests and you will understand my extreme skepticism.
Watch the video closeups of the actual cutting of the sample used for the carbon dating. Everything removed from the Shroud was sealed and documented,even every thread that held the holland cloth on. For someone to erroneously claim they plucked a couple of threads from one of the samples before it was sealed and with no recorded documentation is dubious to say the least.
Well these “kitchen table scientists” are an ex priest and an alleged mystic.The alleged mystic purportedly received messages from an entity claiming to be Jesus and this entity told her the C14 tests were done on a repair! This alleged mystic(may God rest her soul) also was the one doing the weird pyramid enochian magic experiments. Sounds a bit wacked does it not? If you read any of her writings they are so muddled and contrived The expriest I believe now owns a company dedicated to more shroud research,He may be affiliated with Barry but I am not sure.I have watched the cutting. Years back.
Have you read Heimburger’s paper?
Tell me what caused Rogers interest, other than being challenged to refute the kitchen table “scientists”.
GKC
Yep. Though, are you sure you read their paper?Well these “kitchen table scientists” are an ex priest and an alleged mystic.The alleged mystic purportedly received messages from an entity claiming to be Jesus and this entity told her the C14 tests were done on a repair! This alleged mystic(may God rest her soul) also was the one doing the weird pyramid enochian magic experiments. Sounds a bit wacked does it not? If you read any of her writings they are so muddled and contrived The expriest I believe now owns a company dedicated to more shroud research,He may be affiliated with Barry but I am not sure.
Rogers never even proved what HE was testing. That invalidates everything. To date no one has been able to refute the 1988 C14 tests and the shroud custodians are unwilling to allow more testing on the retained fragments from the restoration.So as it stands we have an artifact scientifically dated to around 1200.Yep. Though, are you sure you read their paper?
And so Rogers originally thought. Among the first things I read, on line, about this controversy, was Rogers saying that he expected to blow away these poseurs, with a flick of his hand (or words to that effect). Until he couldn’t disprove their thesis. But confirmed it.
And being a logical and conscientious scientist, he published his findings.
That’s how it works. Rogers didn’t believe in pyramids. He believed in what he saw. As he reported in his paper.
Certainly folk do differ on that. But they don’t differ by trying to poison the well on what Rogers was doing. If they are conscientious scientist types that is.
GKC
No one is suggesting that anyone “plucked a couple of threads from one of the samples before it was sealed and with no recorded documentation”. If you actually read any of the documents that have been linked here in this thread, you would know that the discrepancy is due to the fact that the sample was cut from a section of the cloth that had been repaired in the 16th century (I was mistaken when I said 13th century, previously), using a method of reweaving cotton fibers into the actual cloth in order to make the repair.GK start researching WHY Rogers suddenly became interested again almost 15 years after the conclusive C14 tests and you will understand my extreme skepticism.
Watch the video closeups of the actual cutting of the sample used for the carbon dating. Everything removed from the Shroud was sealed and documented,even every thread that held the holland cloth on. For someone to erroneously claim they plucked a couple of threads from one of the samples before it was sealed and with no recorded documentation is dubious to say the least.
Sorry,but there is NO scientific evidence that the sample used for the C14 dating was from a repair.NONE You can clearly see from the 1988 video closeup that the sample is exactly like the weave of the whole cloth.Watching that sealed it for me. Everything during that removal was documented and sealed. No one has been able to refute the C14 tests and the custodians are unwilling to have the fragments, retained after the restoration,properly tested.No one is suggesting that anyone “plucked a couple of threads from one of the samples before it was sealed and with no recorded documentation”. If you actually read any of the documents that have been linked here in this thread, you would know that the discrepancy is due to the fact that the sample was cut from a section of the cloth that had been repaired in the 16th century (I was mistaken when I said 13th century, previously), using a method of reweaving cotton fibers into the actual cloth in order to make the repair.
That method of reweaving is used by people that repair ancient tapestries that have been damaged. In effect, they carefully attach new individual threads to the old ones, and copy the weaving pattern of the original cloth in an attempt to make it look identical, and invisible to the naked eye. In this case, they used new cotton threads to replace the original linen. In more recent studies of the cloth by textile experts, they have magnified those patches and it can be clearly seen that the reweaves look very similar, but under magnification the difference between them is very evident. That is the part of the Shroud where the CD 14 samples were taken, so those samples produced the flawed results.
All of this information was presented in the series from Women of Grace on EWTN that I linked to, earlier in this thread. Look at >>>this episode<<< that covers all of this information on the problems with the CD 14 testing, and shows the closeup pictures of the patches in question. It will be well worth the few minutes it will take you to watch it. You might just change your mind. Maybe not. But, at least you will see what the controversy actually is. (You can skip to just shy of the 6:00 mark to get to the CD 14 discussion and see what you think.)
Would you mind giving your credentials that would cause one to give your conclusion some credibility above those scientists with whom you disagree? Or is your opinion on about the same level as mine?youtube.com/watch?v=qQQghO06umg
There is no way that this sample is some sort of invisible patch or reweave.The closeup is very detailed.
Except.that.scientists have.proven its not paint. And is phsically impossible to have been painted 2000 years ago (which it has.pollen from Jesus time in Palestine), and it.has a LOAD of blood.type AB on it. The image is proven to be.of a.substance not of earth. And the same substance.as the.Guadalupe shroud which is a miraculous image of Our Lady.I do not think the Shroud of Turin is genuine nor is it a forgery.I cannot say I am agnostic about it because I believe it to be a fascinating work of art.
Except.that.the.aetheist.who took that sample spent the rest of his life arguing it was an added piece from the 13th.century. And.died of cancer believing in Christ and believing.it.was Christ’s Shroud, and spending the end of his life proving this.Sorry,but there is NO scientific evidence that the sample used for the C14 dating was from a repair.NONE You can clearly see from the 1988 video closeup that the sample is exactly like the weave of the whole cloth.Watching that sealed it for me. Everything during that removal was documented and sealed. No one has been able to refute the C14 tests and the custodians are unwilling to have the fragments, retained after the restoration,properly tested.
I seriously doubt that someone would go to such ridiculous extremes to conceal a repaired area, The shroud has numerous defects and obvious repairs after a fire. It would be ludicrous to resort to invisible weaving to repair a non image area.And actually invisible weaving purportedly used the same threads from the cloth but from inconspicuous areas.
With doubts as raised by Rogers.Rogers never even proved what HE was testing. That invalidates everything. To date no one has been able to refute the 1988 C14 tests and the shroud custodians are unwilling to allow more testing on the retained fragments from the restoration.So as it stands we have an artifact scientifically dated to around 1200.
Rogers wouldnt agree with you. He spent the rest of his life’s work arguing.that.the piece he cut was an added piece from the 13th.century. He would disagree with you. He did cut.the piece.and.Have a better look at it.than you did.Rogers never even proved what HE was testing. That invalidates everything. To date no one has been able to refute the 1988 C14 tests and the shroud custodians are unwilling to allow more testing on the retained fragments from the restoration.So as it stands we have an artifact scientifically dated to around 1200.
Look at the sample in the video.This is the ACTUAL cut as far as I know.Can you see any evidence of some secret repair.I do not and I have frozen and enlarged it many times.Rogers wouldnt agree with you. He spent the rest of his life’s work arguing.that.the piece he cut was an added piece from the 13th.century. He would disagree with you. He did cut.the piece.and.Have a better look at it.than you did.
There is also pollen on the shroud dating to the times and places.the.Shroud.was hidden in history.
And;
Scientists have proven there.is pollen on the Shroud dating to Palestine dating to the time.Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago.
Scientifically.dated to 2,015 years ago.