Life of Brian

[Dave_Mole]

When you know the RC date is problematic, Scientists look for other ways and additional data. They go where evidence leads

The dates aren't problematic, unless you really, really want the shroud to be 1st century. But it isn't, so you have to make up new "techniques" with no validity to "prove" that there's some sort of problem with them. Which there isn't.

the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud is of no consequence to the catholic church or followers of it.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/comment...sed-so-easily/
https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazin...shroud-debate/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...s-pope-francis
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/w...roud-of-turin/

I could go on.
But you won't read those links, so here's a quote: "Many of the faithful sincerely believe that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of our Lord, Jesus Christ"

Atheists seem more intent on challenging it, than the church does in confirming it.

so why bother running all the tests in the first place?

why they gave the wrong answer

it's wrong if you believe the shroud is 1st century. If you understand science and how radiocarbon dating actually works the dates are correct. The "answer" may be "wrong" to those who really, really want the shroud to be 1st century, however. Which doesn't make it wrong.


So yes, keep up with the lies and deceptions, and the insults, it's doing you the world of good.

[Dave_Mole]

he's not an arrogant christian bully.

He's a very naughty boy.

[Llani Boy]

Every day on Facebook....! best one yesterday was along the lines of "I've browsed the FRA website, seen the race entry details, but I still don't understand how to enter a race...."

I read that as well Travs and was so tempted to reply especially to the bit where he was used to "well organised 10k's", but I couldn't be arsed!

[Llani Boy]

[QUOTE=Travs;656653... is there anywhere I can debate the best sock for a rocky fell race on a cloudy day with 65% chance of rain...[/QUOTE]

For the last couple of months I've been wearing Aldi waterproof socks in both my Mudclaws and Scott RC's and they have been great. At £12.99, a bargain.

[Oracle]

As always you ignore the substantial and varied forensic and historic evidence that the date was wrong. The cloth weave is ancient and had spent time in Palestine. Not possible if mediaeval.
Even oxford accepts that evidence exists. The forensic correspondence with sudarium shows much older. Meanwhile The area they tested was anomalous, and the samples they took had anomalous threads.
And the lead shroud researcher was also convinced the dating was false. The only question is why.


I watch all the programmes, most are bunk.
I am reminded of one that took the dating as gospel, concluded it was an artwork, ignoring the chemistry. Finally concluding da Vinci did it.

The sad thing was for their absurd theory, the shroud custody dates before da Vinci was born.

I cite this only to point out, that however elegant a theory, it has to line up with history. And on that basis the RC chemistry might be faultless, it is also wrong because it doesn’t line up with history or other forensics. Why it is wrong is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, The fact it is wrong is the problem.

The shroud is far older, of Middle East origin. Other dates line up with the weave and testing on it as first century. If it is a fraud it’s a clever one, because even now nobody knows how to produce it, and it would have been done in the dark ages not mediaeval times,

I’ve no doubt the labs will continue defending their date.
As evidence builds they were wrong.

The Catholic Church does not make any artefact or claimed miracle an article of faith, and is always hostile in the first instance. But then you know as much about that as you do about the shroud. Whatever the faithful think they don5 speak for the church.

I’m open minded on it. I’m open to any explanation that encompasses all that is known. Even if the explanations is natural or fraud. But the RC date is an outlier that simply doesn’t fit, so the question is why it went wrong.

You clearly aren’t interested in the evidence other than that you claim supports you.

The dates aren't problematic, unless you really, really want the shroud to be 1st century. But it isn't, so you have to make up new "techniques" with no validity to "prove" that there's some sort of problem with them. Which there isn't.



https://catholicherald.co.uk/comment...sed-so-easily/
https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazin...shroud-debate/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...s-pope-francis
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/w...roud-of-turin/

I could go on.
But you won't read those links, so here's a quote: "Many of the faithful sincerely believe that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of our Lord, Jesus Christ"


so why bother running all the tests in the first place?


it's wrong if you believe the shroud is 1st century. If you understand science and how radiocarbon dating actually works the dates are correct. The "answer" may be "wrong" to those who really, really want the shroud to be 1st century, however. Which doesn't make it wrong.


So yes, keep up with the lies and deceptions, and the insults, it's doing you the world of good.

[MattPo]

I rest my case.

[Graham Breeze]

There has been a lot more activity on the Forum since this thread started.

Oracle might even believe he has raised the Forum from the dead.

[Dave_Mole]

The shroud is far older, of Middle East origin. Other dates line up with the weave and testing on it as first century.

The testing of the threads: both times this has happened on threads with unknown provenance. The "tests" are unproven and provided a date that the testers wanted. You're the one who goes on about confirmation bias.

In 2000, fragments of a burial shroud believed to have belonged to a Jewish high priest or member of the aristocracy from the 1st century were discovered in a tomb near Jerusalem. The shroud was composed of a simple two-way weave, unlike the complex herringbone twill of the Turin Shroud. Based on this discovery, the researchers stated that the Turin Shroud did not originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

The person who did the pollen analysis subsequently publicly retracted that analysis. The pollen/DNA recovered from the shroud has not been dated, so therefore could date to any period in the shroud's history. Just because pollen from a region is present (and there's DNA from the Americas) doesn't mean the shroud has been to those locations. Kew Gardens has plants from Africa but isn't in Africa. If you're going to fake something, this is easy to fake too. These tests don't prove a date, or indeed that the shroud has been to any of the locations in which the pollen is found.

The shroud is only recorded from the 15th century onwards. The same as the radiocarbon dates.

I’m open minded on it.

Hilarious! Simply hilarious.

[anthonykay]

For the last couple of months I've been wearing Aldi waterproof socks in both my Mudclaws and Scott RC's and they have been great. At £12.99, a bargain.

All I want is socks that you can just put in a bucket of water after your run, and all the mud just soaks off them so you can pull them out of the bucket completely clean a few hours later.

[Oracle]

This discussion is pointless, not least because you are coming into it 20 years late
You dont know the background. You echo all the red herrings.

I will point out two things.
1/ There is no reason to dispute either Rogers integrity, competence , or that he was the senior authority.
The fibres he got legitimately from the then principle advisor to the Shroud owner, at the time owned by a family. Only later did it pass to the church, and only then did the NEW owner ask for threads back, which they didnt own when the samples were taken. No surprise here. Riggi also took samples early days.. From seeing the samples there is no reason to dispute authenticity.

The prime movers of the attacks on rogers are mainly the wackjobs of skeptical enquirer. The same people like Nickell who painted a silly face that matched neither the chemistry nor the other characteristics. One of these wackjobs was Mcrone. Whose claim to fame was Wrongly atributing authenticity to the shroud. They describe it as a paiting when is a shallow layer oxidation. They are the same wackjobs that attacked the original pollen scienties Frei, criticism roundly dismissed by such as Whanger.
Sadly wicky allows all these wackjobs to link their pseudsocience. Check out Nickells image!

2/ You will not be aware there was a massive war of words over sampling that raged for a long time BEFORE the test was done. The sensible faction demanded multipoint testing. Why?

Because it is a fact the shroud has been repared mainy times, some documented, some not, the nature and extent unknown. If only one area was tested it would never solve the problem and it hasnt. It was always questionable what was tested or what was a repair. It wasnt a new question.. The raes area was questioned before the test. Nobody disputes the AMS test, it is what it measured that is the problem. The owners/ church said they were being blackmailed into accepting the unnacceptable. Ultimately the tested waded with size 9s into a test of ashroud they knew little about, and a new compliant adviser who equally knew little ended up with one sample taken

Put simply if they tested a 16 th century eg fire repair, they would get a corresponding date! A mix would give a shifted date.

So now we are where most of us said:
the result will be cast in reasonable doubt, as both the testers lab reports noted anomalous threads, (they didnt even have the gumption to look at before burn them!) and such as ROgers now cast reasonable doubt. He ptested the old fibres saying "he will dismiss the invisible repair in five minutes" he ended up confirming it a viable theory.

All the test did was create unnecessary controversy: the testers were told that a single sample would not resovle it but they went ahead.

3/ The other historic evidence doesnt fit. Take the sudarium correspondence. The iconography.

So it was always an outlier resulting from testers ignoring advice. For well over a year before the test the argument raged about multiple samples. Then the changing of the guard allowed a silly test. The question was why not whether it was wrong.

The fanti tests are not definitive , they certainly cast reasonable doubt with a mass of other evidence.


I am open minded.
If somebody can show how it was produced in the 5th century, and can reconcile how other evidence can line up.
Can validate or disprove both a new (multisample) and fantis tests. And if that is what a properly run

I will accept an explanation that lines up with all the data, and explains why the rest doesnt fit.

Till then it remains fascinating, and it is certainly possible it is genuine.

Searching wiki and skeptical enquirer , or listening to the AMS community defend a botch , they were told two years before would be a botch, unlss they did multisamples will not get to truth..

The testing of the threads: both times this has happened on threads with unknown provenance. The "tests" are unproven and provided a date that the testers wanted. You're the one who goes on about confirmation bias.

In 2000, fragments of a burial shroud believed to have belonged to a Jewish high priest or member of the aristocracy from the 1st century were discovered in a tomb near Jerusalem. The shroud was composed of a simple two-way weave, unlike the complex herringbone twill of the Turin Shroud. Based on this discovery, the researchers stated that the Turin Shroud did not originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

The person who did the pollen analysis subsequently publicly retracted that analysis. The pollen/DNA recovered from the shroud has not been dated, so therefore could date to any period in the shroud's history. Just because pollen from a region is present (and there's DNA from the Americas) doesn't mean the shroud has been to those locations. Kew Gardens has plants from Africa but isn't in Africa. If you're going to fake something, this is easy to fake too. These tests don't prove a date, or indeed that the shroud has been to any of the locations in which the pollen is found.

The shroud is only recorded from the 15th century onwards. The same as the radiocarbon dates.


Hilarious! Simply hilarious.