did I actually see the word 'radiocarbonists' in that vid description? sheesh... the word is 'physicists'...
It is a totally pointless video...we know this is a 700 year old antique...end of story...
some people just 'need' things to be what they thought they were.... also the original team were supposed to take multiple samples...and they did... but when the results came back from several laboratories the Vatican wouldn't allow any more samples to be taken.
Only 1 sample was taken and then divided up into 3 pieces. The original protocal was for 15 samples from different sites to be taken. It didn't happen.There are many copies of the shroud, including the Hungarian Pray manuscript which predate the c-14 test date range. This shows the shroud was known of and copied further east and can be identified as the original for many copies going back to Constantinople and to St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. It's not a painting! Read!
@dingorex actually the strurp people took several samples that true, and it was tested...that too is true, but it was sent to three separate laboratories and blind tested with other samples taken from other sources... all shroud samples returned the same date... and if you bothered your ass to look at my channel you'd be aware by now that I know a shit load about carbon.
Now its very nice of you to ask me to read more... but what I have forgotten about carbon isn't worth fucking learning!
There is no "carbon dating debate". Carbon dating works. End of story.
as far as the whole "oh, well maybe they should have took more samples" thing, carbon dating is dating used to calculate not when thing thing was forged, obviously, but when the material used to make it stopped being alive. They carbon dated it to around the same time it was "discovered" in the 14th century. Obvious fraud.
You are wrong. If a copy of the shroud with its unique characteristics is found in art history then the shroud obviously had to be around before the copy was made-logic! Don't you think rewoven fibers and years of contamination (the biggest being its fire damage in the 1500s) could and would alter the date of the c14 test????
The Pray manuscript from 1190s proves the shroud existed before the C14 date.Tite got a lot of money and a cushy job out of his "debunking". Study more.
@dingorex What?? That doesn't make any sense, are you saying that no one could have just make up something that looked like it proved Jesus?? That's ridiculous, people make up "artifacts" ALL THE TIME. Just a few years ago, an atheist tricked a bunch of people with a fake piece of "Noah's Ark"
How would a fire affect the half-life of carbon-14 present in organic material, and can you prove it did so?
They dated it to between 13th and 14th century. 1190s is consistant with that.
@JoeyisDREADful No it isn't consistant. It is consistant with a history of the Shroud being the model for countless icons and representations linked to the Image of Edessa which has an even older history than that. Look at the video on Iconography and the Shroud to see my point proven.
@dingorex How is that not consistant? the dates were between 13th and 14th certury and, considering the margin of error on C14 dating, an end of 12th century manuscript talking about it is pretty much at the same time. I mean, what, 20-30 years off? That's damn close.
Your point doesn't make any sense! You're saying that this is a copy of some non-existant original. That's just a completly unjustified assertion to make. There's absoulutly no evidence that any such thing exists.
@dingorex I watched the video, it's pointless. Whomever painted the shroud could have just as easily copied existing iconography, and not the other way around.
It could also be something that neither I or the guy in the video has thought of yet. Something sort-of resembling another thing proves NOTHING about what it actually is or signifies. Alien nuts say that ancient pictures look like UFOs, but that doesn't mean jack until they give evidence to show why their theory is likely to be true.
@JoeyisDREADful fire does in fact skew radio carbon results... it does so by removing carbon from the overall sample....but it'd need to be a pile of ashes to skew it so much it was out by 200%! However given that c14 samples are cleaned using chemicals that destroy all sorts of contamination then whatever is left...is whatever is being tested...ie. the woven material in this case... free of contamination...maybe it'd be out by 1% at most....and I'm being generous there. so + or - 50 years...
@MumblingMickey Yeah, I figured a fire could probably have /some/ effect, but to act like a fire completely invalidates the date they gave is ridiculous unless you can give some reason to think so, was my point.
Glad somone who knows more about it then me commented. :)
@JoeyisDREADful yeah what I don't know about carbon isn't worth talking about...been working with the stuff 20 odd years. Which yes does make me a nerd...but all the same a knowledgeable nerd... lol
@JoeyisDREADful plus a fire would remove statistically just as much c13 as c14... c14 dating does not compare the c14 to regular carbon (c12) it compares it to c13...another isotope... so given the formul (nerdtime) T{1/2}\ \lambda = \ln(2) then the result would be more or less the same...
however if the fire reduced the sample to a pile of ash...then the results would be pointless...
people believe this because the shroud has a photo negative image of a man (meaning that it is a kind of photo), with 3-Dimensionak qualities (which no photo or painting exhibits), with perfect medical pathological info (meaning there was a dead, crucified man there), with perfect historical info (meaning the weave is an ancient, as opposed to medieval style; the man was pierced through the wrists, not the hands; the man had a ponytail common to the fashion of the time); etc etc.
@condorito29 I wonder what happened to his sword? He's certainly a dead christian...and definitely a soldier...since he's laid out in medieval burial style...and holding a sword too...which is nowhere to be seen...
The weave is perfectly normal for medieval europe btw... 1st century textiles used hand woven 2 way weaves....they hadn't invented more complex methods yet. So he probably did die in Jerusalem or thereabouts...but not on a cross...unless you think Jesus wore chainmail?
did I actually see the word 'radiocarbonists' in that vid description? sheesh... the word is 'physicists'...
It is a totally pointless video...we know this is a 700 year old antique...end of story...
some people just 'need' things to be what they thought they were.... also the original team were supposed to take multiple samples...and they did... but when the results came back from several laboratories the Vatican wouldn't allow any more samples to be taken.
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@MumblingMickey
Only 1 sample was taken and then divided up into 3 pieces. The original protocal was for 15 samples from different sites to be taken. It didn't happen.There are many copies of the shroud, including the Hungarian Pray manuscript which predate the c-14 test date range. This shows the shroud was known of and copied further east and can be identified as the original for many copies going back to Constantinople and to St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. It's not a painting! Read!
dingorex 7 months ago
@dingorex actually the strurp people took several samples that true, and it was tested...that too is true, but it was sent to three separate laboratories and blind tested with other samples taken from other sources... all shroud samples returned the same date... and if you bothered your ass to look at my channel you'd be aware by now that I know a shit load about carbon.
Now its very nice of you to ask me to read more... but what I have forgotten about carbon isn't worth fucking learning!
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@dingorex I must have missed the bit where you demonstrated it was anything more than its been demonstrated to be...
Sorry at the moment its a piece of cloth from the dark ages... have you any more to add than that?
MumblingMickey 6 months ago
There is no "carbon dating debate". Carbon dating works. End of story.
as far as the whole "oh, well maybe they should have took more samples" thing, carbon dating is dating used to calculate not when thing thing was forged, obviously, but when the material used to make it stopped being alive. They carbon dated it to around the same time it was "discovered" in the 14th century. Obvious fraud.
JoeyisDREADful 8 months ago
@JoeyisDREADful
You are wrong. If a copy of the shroud with its unique characteristics is found in art history then the shroud obviously had to be around before the copy was made-logic! Don't you think rewoven fibers and years of contamination (the biggest being its fire damage in the 1500s) could and would alter the date of the c14 test????
The Pray manuscript from 1190s proves the shroud existed before the C14 date.Tite got a lot of money and a cushy job out of his "debunking". Study more.
dingorex 8 months ago
@dingorex What?? That doesn't make any sense, are you saying that no one could have just make up something that looked like it proved Jesus?? That's ridiculous, people make up "artifacts" ALL THE TIME. Just a few years ago, an atheist tricked a bunch of people with a fake piece of "Noah's Ark"
How would a fire affect the half-life of carbon-14 present in organic material, and can you prove it did so?
They dated it to between 13th and 14th century. 1190s is consistant with that.
JoeyisDREADful 8 months ago
@JoeyisDREADful No it isn't consistant. It is consistant with a history of the Shroud being the model for countless icons and representations linked to the Image of Edessa which has an even older history than that. Look at the video on Iconography and the Shroud to see my point proven.
dingorex 8 months ago
@dingorex How is that not consistant? the dates were between 13th and 14th certury and, considering the margin of error on C14 dating, an end of 12th century manuscript talking about it is pretty much at the same time. I mean, what, 20-30 years off? That's damn close.
Your point doesn't make any sense! You're saying that this is a copy of some non-existant original. That's just a completly unjustified assertion to make. There's absoulutly no evidence that any such thing exists.
JoeyisDREADful 8 months ago
@dingorex I watched the video, it's pointless. Whomever painted the shroud could have just as easily copied existing iconography, and not the other way around.
It could also be something that neither I or the guy in the video has thought of yet. Something sort-of resembling another thing proves NOTHING about what it actually is or signifies. Alien nuts say that ancient pictures look like UFOs, but that doesn't mean jack until they give evidence to show why their theory is likely to be true.
JoeyisDREADful 8 months ago
@JoeyisDREADful fire does in fact skew radio carbon results... it does so by removing carbon from the overall sample....but it'd need to be a pile of ashes to skew it so much it was out by 200%! However given that c14 samples are cleaned using chemicals that destroy all sorts of contamination then whatever is left...is whatever is being tested...ie. the woven material in this case... free of contamination...maybe it'd be out by 1% at most....and I'm being generous there. so + or - 50 years...
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@MumblingMickey Yeah, I figured a fire could probably have /some/ effect, but to act like a fire completely invalidates the date they gave is ridiculous unless you can give some reason to think so, was my point.
Glad somone who knows more about it then me commented. :)
So now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
lol
JoeyisDREADful 7 months ago
@JoeyisDREADful yeah what I don't know about carbon isn't worth talking about...been working with the stuff 20 odd years. Which yes does make me a nerd...but all the same a knowledgeable nerd... lol
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
@JoeyisDREADful plus a fire would remove statistically just as much c13 as c14... c14 dating does not compare the c14 to regular carbon (c12) it compares it to c13...another isotope... so given the formul (nerdtime) T{1/2}\ \lambda = \ln(2) then the result would be more or less the same...
however if the fire reduced the sample to a pile of ash...then the results would be pointless...
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need to marry you Be Naughty girls benaughtyman.info
anukiyashora 1 year ago
people believe this because the shroud has a photo negative image of a man (meaning that it is a kind of photo), with 3-Dimensionak qualities (which no photo or painting exhibits), with perfect medical pathological info (meaning there was a dead, crucified man there), with perfect historical info (meaning the weave is an ancient, as opposed to medieval style; the man was pierced through the wrists, not the hands; the man had a ponytail common to the fashion of the time); etc etc.
condorito29 3 years ago 2
@condorito29 I wonder what happened to his sword? He's certainly a dead christian...and definitely a soldier...since he's laid out in medieval burial style...and holding a sword too...which is nowhere to be seen...
The weave is perfectly normal for medieval europe btw... 1st century textiles used hand woven 2 way weaves....they hadn't invented more complex methods yet. So he probably did die in Jerusalem or thereabouts...but not on a cross...unless you think Jesus wore chainmail?
MumblingMickey 7 months ago
Why do people believe this?
theOvin2 3 years ago