Posted on 10/10/2002 2:14:50 AM PDT by SteveH
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:57:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
GURAT, France, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Turin Shroud bearing the features of a crucified man may well be the cloth that enveloped the body of Christ, a renowned textile historian told United Press International Tuesday.
Disputing inconclusive carbon-dating tests suggesting the shroud hailed from medieval times, Swiss specialist Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said it could be almost 2,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
....but since you brought it up.....
Did you know that when the sample (again, taken from the ONE spot on the Shroud that the team insisted should be avoided? curious as to why?) was tested that there were only about 11 facilities in the world capable of radiocarbon dating? Did you also realize that there were ZERO standards among these labs/test facilities? Zip.....nada.......zilch? Do you not agree that calibration to agreed-upon standards would be a pretty good idea (ahem)?
Are you also familiar with the factors that determine results from radiocarbon dating?
It isn't that it "doesn't work". It also isn't bloody magic, either.
We are also told that His crucifixion was such that his visage was not that of a man. My, what He did for us on that cross.
I've also asked you to lay your credentials on the table. I know Tom D'Muhala's. I know the kind of man he is, I know his work, and I know the kind of scientist he is. He's just ONE member of this extended team. Let's see what you've got that seemingly allows you to look down your nose at such people.
Be skeptical.......that's fine; it's expected. However, a scientist is supposed to be open-minded and willing to investigate applying the scientific method. At least show a willingness to research a bit.
If you DON'T give a damn about the issue in the first place, then you should avoid such threads.
In the sample.
You're making an accusation of fraud.
The one "stone" I've thrown is to debunk the pervasive claims of contamination. If it missed, quantitatively show me how.
As to insisting on focusing on "contamination".........which I didn't bring up, by the way.........why don't you respond to my previous reply?
I do. But your "wonder why" comment obviously indicates the former.
As to insisting on focusing on "contamination".........which I didn't bring up, by the way.........
No, but that was the issue I was discussing when you jumped down my throat.
why don't you respond to my previous reply?
Which one?
Who cares!?....
(hand raised)OOooo,Ooo,ooo,ooo,OOOo,OOO(persona-Horshack)
......sigh............no, it had to do with their contention that that section was not part of the original Shroud.
"No, but that was the issue I was discussing when you jumped down my throat."
Maybe.......just maybe.........you deserved it.
"Which one?"
#103
I debunked a demonstrably incorrect argument. Clearly I was out of line. :-/
You seem to be under the impression that I'm "out to get the Shroud". I'm not. I don't have the hyper-emotional investment in the issue that you have. Believe whatever you want. But when it comes to a quantitative issue, I'm going to keep it honest.
Be skeptical.......that's fine; it's expected. However, a scientist is supposed to be open-minded and willing to investigate applying the scientific method. At least show a willingness to research a bit.
You know it doesn't work that way. You can't say, "your argument is wrong, and if you go elsewhere contact this expert he'll show you why," and then accuse me of laziness for not taking the fight elsewhere against your champion. (That's even assuming it's a fight I'm waging, which it isn't.) The argument, if any, is occurring here. Either defend your own ideas or get your expert to come here to defend them.
If you DON'T give a damn about the issue in the first place, then you should avoid such threads.
I can't say that I've been criticized for my dispassion before.
Photo Index: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_gallery.htm
Hi-Res Full Length:http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/sindone_recto.jpg
Hi-Res Face: http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/il_volto.jpg
Video footage: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_filmati.htm
News: http://www.shroud.com/index.htm
Overview of recent changes: Photo Overview
Research Overview: http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm
Perhaps the most interesting item on the ShroudStory site:
ESSAY: The Resurrection Problem and the Shroud of Turin
which has research details, especially:
The most intriguing characteristic
A picture of a million words
How were the images formed?
http://www.crc-internet.org/shroud.htm
(Note: the site is schismatic, but the article is interesting).
One of the most noteworthy papers presented at the "Sindone 2000" Orvieto Worldwide Conference in August 2000, was "Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs" by Joseph Marino and M. Sue Benford. It presented evidence that the corner of the Shroud where the C-14 samples were taken from in 1988 contained spurious fibers from a medieval reweaving, resulting in an inaccurate date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.