http://www.shroud.com has the latest on the upcoming public showing of the shroud in 2010 and new C-14 testings.
If one assumes that the radiocarbonists' claim that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery is correct. It is based on what that conclusion tells us about the forger. It tells us that:
1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.
3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.
4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.
6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.
7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.
8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.
9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.
10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.
11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.
12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.
13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.
14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.
If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.
It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!
CONCLUSION
The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.
Loading...
5:35
Physicist Jon Jackson's Overview of shroud part 2by Dr0pDuckC0ver642 views
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@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