Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Nonono. He says he received his samples from the reserve (held by Gonella, after the1988 cut) on12 Dec 2003. Which was somewhat after the 3 samples from the other portion of the cut were tested. Like, 5+ years.

“On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp
and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from
the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating.
Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center
of the radiocarbon sample”. That is, it was at the edge of the reserve portion next to the portion divided and tested in 1988.

Moving and talking pictures are not the same as microscopy and micro-photography And chemical analysis. As looking at the cover of a book is not the same as reading it.

Reminds me. Leaving for the bookstore now.

Remember: reading is your friend. Careful reading is even friendlier.

GKC.
Click to expand...
May I humbly make a suggestion,something to add to your collection of infallible literature? Try Sitchins the 12th Planet.It will explain to you how we are all really little aliens that were seeded here from a planet called Nibiru! we were created to mine gold because the aliens were too lazy.😉
 
cjforJesus said:
May I humbly make a suggestion,something to add to your collection of infallible literature? Try Sitchins the 12th Planet.It will explain to you how we are all really little aliens that were seeded here from a planet called Nibiru! we were created to mine gold because the aliens were too lazy.😉
Click to expand...
Too late. I have several of Sitchin’s volumes. Back in the days when I was interested in “weird stuff” ( you will recall that subject), I accumulated him and other stuff like that.

He’s a loon. Like Icke.

And I speak as one who has seen the species often.

Rogers is a scientist.

You and I are not. I listen to scientific discussions and consider the offerings. Make tentative conclusions.Look at all sides.

And read.

Book ordered today; that mission accomplished.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Too late. I have several of Sitchin’s volumes. Back in the days when I was interested in “weird stuff” ( you will recall that subject), I accumulated him and other stuff like that.

He’s a loon. Like Icke.

And I speak as one who has seen the species often.

Rogers is a scientist.

You and I are not. I listen to scientific discussions and consider the offerings. Make tentative conclusions.Look at all sides.

And read.

Book ordered today; that mission accomplished.

GKC
Click to expand...
RayRogers was primarily an explosives expert.I have no idea why he was recruited to examine a piece of artwork.
 
Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, in a joint paper of 2003[9] proposed that amines from a recently deceased human body may have undergone Maillard reactions with this carbohydrate layer within a reasonable period of time, before liquid decomposition products stained or damaged the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically and within a few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine and cadaverine.
 
cjforJesus said:
Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, in a joint paper of 2003[9] proposed that amines from a recently deceased human body may have undergone Maillard reactions with this carbohydrate layer within a reasonable period of time, before liquid decomposition products stained or damaged the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically and within a few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine and cadaverine.
Click to expand...
Yes. He was a physical chemist. He did propose that.

You know enough to make a contrary case?
 
GKC said:
Chemist. Specialty in thermal analysis.

GKC
Click to expand...
Hello GKC,

I trust you have these initials in honor of the great Gilbert Keith Chesterton?

Lets hope so.

I’ve read many of your posts on this thread, and unfortunately do not have enough time to go through all of them. I’m moderately convinced that you may know what you’re talking about and might be prepared to give us your opinions on some questions. Should this be true, could you please comment on:
  1. The validity, or non, of the carbon dating studies posturing a medieval date, the relevance of the fire, and whether or not the sample was adequate;
  2. The validity, or non, of the various particles and structure of the shroud indicating a 1st C date, I have seen everything from mid-eastern pollen, Jerusalem’s road dust around the knees, the weave being unique to the 1st C, among others;
  3. Whether there is a probing explanation for the physical content of the image: being on the surface, the blood “before” the created image, being a photographic negative, etc;
    and 4) Supposing, with the whitewashed naturalists, that miracles are just impossible–what is the best explanation that secularists and their minions have to offer?
Thank you in advance.

Vivat Jesus
 
Yes, indeed. I’ve collected my man Gilbert (and a number of similar writers) for over 50 years. My collection of his works, and works on him, is most thorough.

As to your questions, I thank you for your kind thoughts. But I am not your man. I was, at one time, more than slightly well read on the subject of the Shroud, accumulating around 15 or so books on it. I let that fade out, around 35 years ago, and took little more interest in the matter until I stumbled over Dr. Rogers’ findings, around 7-8 years ago. Which made me read up on him and his paper, and all that inspired.

Discussion of the subjects you inquire about can be found in the books I own, read, and used to have access to, and probably in others. But, alas, as almost always happens to books on subjects not actively pursued, those books are packed and inaccessible. And I wouldn’t attempt any comment without sources to hand. OTOH, your 1st question relates to Dr. Rogers’ 2005 paper, and you can find it on line. He makes, in my opinion, a good case. Not all competent folk agree.

Have you looked at what is available at shroud.com? I prefer books, but one uses what is do hand.

Again, thank you for the kind compliment. But the shroud hasn’t been an active hobbyhorse for me for many years.

GKC
MonsterOfThomas said:
Hello GKC,

I trust you have these initials in honor of the great Gilbert Keith Chesterton?

Lets hope so.

I’ve read many of your posts on this thread, and unfortunately do not have enough time to go through all of them. I’m moderately convinced that you may know what you’re talking about and might be prepared to give us your opinions on some questions. Should this be true, could you please comment on:
  1. The validity, or non, of the carbon dating studies posturing a medieval date, the relevance of the fire, and whether or not the sample was adequate;
  2. The validity, or non, of the various particles and structure of the shroud indicating a 1st C date, I have seen everything from mid-eastern pollen, Jerusalem’s road dust around the knees, the weave being unique to the 1st C, among others;
  3. Whether there is a probing explanation for the physical content of the image: being on the surface, the blood “before” the created image, being a photographic negative, etc;
    and 4) Supposing, with the whitewashed naturalists, that miracles are just impossible–what is the best explanation that secularists and their minions have to offer?
Thank you in advance.

Vivat Jesus
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
Yes. He was a physical chemist. He did propose that.

You know enough to make a contrary case?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Like I confirmed previously.I don’t even know what he is talking about most of the time as I am not a scientist, just your average skeptic.

I have noticed though that the maillard reaction is probably what art historian Thomas De Wesselow was talking about in his shroud bookIt .appears he was attempting to debunk the resurrection and Christianity while authenticating the shroud as Jesus burial cloth! I don’t know that Ray Rogers was leaning in that direction though when he published his paper.
 
cjforJesus said:
Absolutely not. Like I confirmed previously.I don’t even know what he is talking about most of the time as I am not a scientist, just your average skeptic.

I have noticed though that the maillard reaction is probably what art historian Thomas De Wesselow was talking about in his shroud bookIt .appears he was attempting to debunk the resurrection and Christianity while authenticating the shroud as Jesus burial cloth! I don’t know that Ray Rogers was leaning in that direction though when he published his paper.
Click to expand...
Nor do I.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top