[annalex]

You kindly posted on the previous provocative thread: Sorry, the Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax, originating from Spencer Alexander McDaniel's blog post.

This is a scholarly and massive response written by Jenny Hawkins on Quora. I only posted the CONCLUSIONS. Read the entire post here: What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?

[j.havenfarm]

I’ve studied this extensively. I agree with Hawkins’ debunking if the debunking. A few other points in favor of authenticity: 1. I think that the shroud, including the herringbone pattern,is plainly depicted in the Pray Codex, circa 1200, before the earliest C14 date. 2. The studies of pollen grains showing pollen from plants along the believed route of the shroud over the centuries: Israel, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Greece, France, Italy. Prevailing winds in the Mediterranean basin are westerly so there is no way that pollen from Israel could have migrated to Europe to deposit on the cloth. 3. Even beyond the other visual phenomena, in the photos I can see what is interpreted as a coin in the anatomical right eye. It’s identical to a certain type of coin issued by Pontius Pilate, and in fact there exist examples of a subset of the coin that has a misspelling. The image on the shroud is one of these. That level of detail by a forger is literally impossible to contemplate

[Rockingham]

Thank you. The analysis you point to is detailed and credible.

[SkyDancer]

I'll post "What Nineteen Factors Prove the Shroud Being Real" when I return from my business trip. I spent three and a half days at a seminar with leading scientists in their field (some molecular) that proved there is no way the Shroud could have been produced using Middle Age technology. Top of the list is: The image is "on" not in the fibers as would a paint produce. That is just one, on another note. You can't see any image detail at all up close as you would in a painting. In a painting the closer you get the more detail. You have to stand back at least eighteen feet to see any sort of image at all, as shown below:

That image is "burnt" not painted and was photographed twenty feet away.

[Swordmaker]

There is really only the one—the Carbon-14 dating. It’s being questioned, but so far, it still stands.

No, the C14 test has been falsified in several peer-reviewed scientific and statistical mathematical journal articles which demonstrate the test sampling was flawed from the beginning. The test samples failed the Chi-square statistical test which is a standard C14 test used to demonstrate that the sample is homogenous with the item being sampled. The sub-samples cut from a single master sample cut from the edge of the Shroud failed in comparison with themselves, failing to show they were homogenous with each other! This was a huge red flag that something was contaminating them.

The soot had nothing to do with it, that is cleaned off, but a patch with more modern threads/material invisibly rewoven into original material could skew the dating if there were enough more modern C14 in the newer material to outweigh the older, depleted C14.

Those who dispute the chemically tested findings that alizarin, madder root dyed cotton threads with which had been retted with a more modern method using Alum were found on one side of that area as opposed to un-dyed, older raw, flax based linen on the other, base their disagreement on just claiming those scientists are merely lying, despite the clear evidence presented in their peer-reviewed published papers. Essentially, they wish the evidence away, refusing to see it, claiming it just doesn't exist.

[newfreep]

Please remove me from any pings of blasphemous and anti-Christ threads.

Signed....a Christian rejecting your false conclusion.

[Albion Wilde]

A very detailed rebuttal. Thank you!

[grey_whiskers]

Carbon dating is utter bullshit in this case. The first thing you have to do is homogeneize the sample.

They didn't do that.

The second thing is that the labs were all given samples, from the very area, which everyone agreed beforehand, would make for a lousy sample, because it was where the Shroud had been patched (look up "French Invisible Reweaving").

That's because, the patching technique started out with new (at the time of the repair) thread, and wove it in with existing fabric, lessening the % of new fabric as it proceeded.

This would result in a gradient in the apparent age of the sample taken from different points in the Shroud where the weaving had been done.

Guess what. That's just what the C-14 testing found.

The other point, which should've been a total red flag that the C-14 testing results were invalid, is that the suggested ages for the Shroud based on the three samples, were outside of each other's error bars.

Even a freshman would fail due to that.

But like never-Trumpers, when one lie fails at attacking the Shroud, recycle another one.

[SkyDancer]

Here's a scan from the page in the booklet I got at the conference.

There is no way that a Middle Age artist could have done this. Also, the carbon dating was taken from the 14th. century repair and not from the actual Shroud itself.

Page was scanned from the ICST-2017 International Conference On The Shroud of Turin.

Take Care and God Bless.

[Ann Archy]

The Shroud is NOT a hoax....deal with it. My FAITH trumps your wish for it to be a fake.

[Osage Orange]

No offense but take me off any list that you have...

Thanks!

[Carriage Hill]

Thanks so much for that scholarly article on the Turin Shroud. I am not qualified to judge all the technical points, but I believe in my Lord & Savior, His Crucifixion and Resurrection, so the Shroud is merely a bonus to the Miracle of Him.

[cloudmountain]

I made an error.
The Shroud is real.