Life of Brian

[Dave_Mole]

I knew it wasn’t worth wasting time treating yours as a genuine question

because you're guilty of what you criticise.
The "dating" techniques you cite have no accepted scientific value. AMS, however, does.
The three AMS dates are statistically compatible. Proper protocols were followed during the tests. The issue of "contamination" is a non-starter, the cotton fibres were identified and removed as part of pre-processing of the samples. If there is any issue with the dates it 100-200 years at best.

But my point is that no one knows where Giulio Fanti got his samples from. The people that look after the Shroud do not "recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments". It's great fake science. But you're such an arrogant prick that you don't really care, do you?

[Oracle]

Read the books and papers, and you will become wiser.
Or Read sceptic nonsense and let your preconception win.

Other than cranks, nobody seriously now believes the AMS results.
Those who had studied the science, didnt believe that result when first published. It was a scientific nonsense.
It was not the AMS test that failed, it was garbage in, garbage out.
It was not five tests, it was the same test with structural error repeated five times.

There was indeed a medieval repair accounting for the anomalous fibres mentioned by MOST of the labs at testing time, but none of them followed up on it.

The( athesit) late Ray rogers los alamos physicist who ran the project,originally believed the AMS, indeed fought back against all of the theories opposing it, was ultimately convinced of the False date and the repair that accounted for it.

And no explanation has ever been given by those clutching the AMS straw of why...
1/ The date hopelessly disagrees with other evidence. eg the large Forensic correspondence with Sudarium of Oviedo (provenance many centuries older)
2/ It is not a fake because it is not an artwork. Mark chemistry proves that. Only a short burst raidiation UV laser has got close to reproducing it. The mark is clearly non contact geometry

Believe what you will. You usually do.
I am a scientist, I go where evidence takes me.

Not worth debating with you till you actually study it.
You are a lazy thinker Dave.

because you're guilty of what you criticise.
The "dating" techniques you cite have no accepted scientific value. AMS, however, does.
The three AMS dates are statistically compatible. Proper protocols were followed during the tests. The issue of "contamination" is a non-starter, the cotton fibres were identified and removed as part of pre-processing of the samples. If there is any issue with the dates it 100-200 years at best.

But my point is that no one knows where Giulio Fanti got his samples from. The people that look after the Shroud do not "recognize any serious value to the results of these alleged experiments". It's great fake science. But you're such an arrogant prick that you don't really care, do you?

[Dave_Mole]

Only a short burst raidiation UV laser has got close to reproducing it. The mark is clearly non contact geometry

which means what, precisely? That it must therefore, somehow be related to Christ?
And, as far as I'm aware, short burst raidiation UV lasers were not around in the 1st century.
Nothing of what you have said either dismisses the well proven, and accepted science of AMS or proves a relation to "Christ" or a 1st century date.

What it does reveal is a willingness to accept psudoscience of the utterly worst kind, the arrogance that no one else could possibly be right and a total commitment to spouting bollocks of the highest order.

[Oracle]

But then I didnt say that.
I went where the evidence does.

I said it was first century palestine (from dating weave and deposits on it)
And it is not an artwork.
The mark is a shallow layer oxidation on one side of the thread only. Which implies radiation.
But the radiation burst had to be short duration and powerful (to avoid deeper mark)Heat cannot make it, or any technology known until recently> Indeed the technology to recreate the shroud in all aspects DOES NOT EXIST TODAY EVEN!
.
UV laser burst is the only way a similar mark has been reproduced electro chemically. Although EHT discharge has a few similarities.

The mark does not exist under the blood marks. Therefore the blood marks preceded it. How. If it was a forgery?
The mark is a non contact image because of 3D distortion geometry. ( which is fascinating by itself)
It has several dozen points of forensic correspondence with the sudarium of oviedo (assumed to be a facecloth)(which also has pre and post mortem pathology, science not known till the last century. Which would be considered beyond reasonable doubt as correspondence for a criminal trial...

That is where the evidence goes. You decide what it means. Once you have studied it that is. Which I have done over three decades. You have not.I have dozens of scientific papers on it. And many books.

But you never will study it because prejudice will not let you, which was the point I made about life of brian . People accepted the film because it reinforced a priori prejudice.
They ignore the disproof of AMS date because it still says what they want it to say.

I really dont care whether you study it or accept the evidence or not.
I have told you where to start looking.

which means what, precisely? That it must therefore, somehow be related to Christ?
And, as far as I'm aware, short burst raidiation UV lasers were not around in the 1st century.
Nothing of what you have said either dismisses the well proven, and accepted science of AMS or proves a relation to "Christ" or a 1st century date.

What it does reveal is a willingness to accept psudoscience of the utterly worst kind, the arrogance that no one else could possibly be right and a total commitment to spouting bollocks of the highest order.

[Dave_Mole]

But you never will study it because prejudice will not let you,

oh dear, oh dear.

so, all that you have said so far is that it's not an artwork and that the image must have been formed by short burst raidiation UV lasers. You are at a total loss to explain why you think AMS dating is somehow incorrect. You roll out spurious "evidence" about fabric tests which have no scientific value in relation to the date of the object. You don't know how or where Giulio Fanti got his samples from. Because no one does. And you don't have an explaination for the use of UV lasers on a cloth which is supposed to date to the 1st century.

Anyone who has seen any of your threads on this forum will recognise the pattern.

Scientist indeed!

[Oracle]

I told you why science has discounted the AMS date. Demonstrably mediaevel repair threads . Anomalous threads were noted at the time of test by several labs. Read their reports.But the labs failed to do what scientists should do. Ask the question why.

If you want to be a flat earther be my guest.

I notice how you twist what I said. Do you ever bother to read? I didnt say it was formed by UV laser. I said the only way similar chemistry of mark has been reproduced is by UV laser, ie very short duration high energy burst. It is a very shallow layer oxidation on one side of the threads only.

Last time I suggest it. Study it before comment, if you expect a reply. You might even find out where Fanti got his samples from. Not that studying before arguing is your strongsuit.

oh dear, oh dear.

so, all that you have said so far is that it's not an artwork and that the image must have been formed by short burst raidiation UV lasers. You are at a total loss to explain why you think AMS dating is somehow incorrect. You roll out spurious "evidence" about fabric tests which have no scientific value in relation to the date of the object. You don't know how or where Giulio Fanti got his samples from. Because no one does. And you don't have an explaination for the use of UV lasers on a cloth which is supposed to date to the 1st century.

Anyone who has seen any of your threads on this forum will recognise the pattern.

Scientist indeed!

[Dave_Mole]

I told you why science has discounted the AMS date.

nope, can't see it.

I didnt say it was formed by UV laser. I said the only way similar chemistry of mark has been reproduced is by UV laser, ie very short duration high energy burst.

and yet you refuse to answer how it was actually formed. By cosmic enegery released by the crucifiction? That sounds very scientific.

You talk about a priori: the argument for the "shroud" being 1st century is driven only by the belief that it must relate to "Christ". Which is, ipso facto, a priori. And plain wrong, in the light of actual scientific evidence, as opposed to pseudoscientific "tests" carried out on material without provenence.

It's great to see that you've been reeled in and your absolute lack of any crebidle counter arguments. SO much so that you have to resort to ad hominin attacks.

Whatever next: Altlantis? Stonehenge is 10,000 years old? The Illuminati?

[Oracle]

One day you might study before argue.
I won’t hold my breath.

I’m a scientist. I told you what the mark is chemically , and the only way it has been reproduced, which proves it isn’t an artwork.
I’ve told you forensic correspondence prove it is far older than the discounted date. And the pre and post mortem pathology,

Just because your apriori prejudice does not like the above , makes not an iota of difference.
You tell me? How was the mark made? Using dark ages technology....

End of discussion. It’s off topic anyway.

nope, can't see it.



and yet you refuse to answer how it was actually formed. By cosmic enegery released by the crucifiction? That sounds very scientific.

You talk about a priori: the argument for the "shroud" being 1st century is driven only by the belief that it must relate to "Christ". Which is, ipso facto, a priori. And plain wrong, in the light of actual scientific evidence, as opposed to pseudoscientific "tests" carried out on material without provenence.

It's great to see that you've been reeled in and your absolute lack of any crebidle counter arguments. SO much so that you have to resort to ad hominin attacks.

Whatever next: Altlantis? Stonehenge is 10,000 years old? The Illuminati?

[Graham Breeze]

.

I’m a scientist...

but a Catholic first and foremost with particularly strong views on terminations?

(And I qualified as a Chartered Engineer but that doesn't mean I could have designed a Saturn rocket, the Freedom Tower and the Channel Tunnel).

[Wheeze]

This reminds me of something.
Oh yeah....https://youtu.be/mjlo4u_8g60