Shroud of Turin

[JLAfan2001]

Not sure if anyone has seen this but it looks like the sample that Roger's used to refute the 1988 carbon dating may have actually been switched. The sample pieces he had may not have been part of the shroud after all. If that is the case then the carbon dating stands as proving the shroud as a medeival forgery.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure if anyone has seen this but it looks like the sample that Roger's used to refute the 1988 carbon dating may have actually been switched. The sample pieces he had may not have been part of the shroud after all. If that is the case then the carbon dating stands as proving the shroud as a medeival forgery.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Any proof that it was?
Seems to me that a switch would require getting cloth fibers that match the shroud exactly AND that were dated to the 1st century.
Quite improbable it seems to me.

[Jac3510]

Yay for conspiracy theories.

[PaulSacramento]

Yay for conspiracy theories.

Suspicion is enough !
LOL !

[DRDS]

Here is a good link that talks about the xray info and compares it to the transfiguration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsxtDci ... e=youtu.be

[bippy123]

Not sure if anyone has seen this but it looks like the sample that Roger's used to refute the 1988 carbon dating may have actually been switched. The sample pieces he had may not have been part of the shroud after all. If that is the case then the carbon dating stands as proving the shroud as a medeival forgery.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Can someone else copy and paste the summary here as the site seems to be blocking me .
JLAFAN everyone here knows that u have an extreme bias against the shroud and if ur true to firm u will except anything that smells of conspiracy theory against the shroud .

Rogers had 32 sticky tape samples from all over the shroud and none of them tested positive for vanillin , are u saying now that Rogers who is an expert thermal chemist from Los alamos labs , respected by all his peers, who actually was one of the first to help pass legislation to teach evolution in schools switched the sample and inserted a false one in there?
The same ray Rogers who accepted the 1988 c14 date ? The same agnostic unbeliever who set out to prove that the sample used wasnt a reweave ?

JLAFAN , instead why don't u ask urself why the people in charge of the 1988 c14 tests didn't do the standard micro chemical analysis to make sure that the sample tested was chemically the same as the rest of the shroud? Why didn't u question the fact that the chi squared number if the samples initially tests to 6.4 , which was over the number 6 which meant it wasn't homologous of the rest of the shroud ? Why didn't u question the fact that the labs communicated with the heads of the c14 tests about the samples ?

I know , I know , a time traveler from the 25th century came back to 1292ad and created an illustration of the shroud to fool the world into thinking the 1988 c14 tests were false .
After that he traveled to 526ad and started placing congruent matching points of up to 185 on the Christ pantocrator to fool us into thinking that the original artist was painting the pantocrator from the shroud.

This would have been just too easy for us to figure out .After that he took a slight trip forward to 614ad and tortured and crucified an individual and placed him in the shroud and then took him off magically with his 25th century hyper-dimensional machine to lift the dead body off the shroud without disturbing the blood clots. After this he places his head in the sudarium and magically fixed it so that it would be a perfect congruent match with the shroud .

He wasn't through yet. Since he had a great love for ancient koine greek he then folded the shroud into a very unique tetradiplon and left the fold marks for physicist john Jackson to rediscover 1500 years later. I personally think that physicist john Jackson and the 25th century forger were in on it lol

JLAFAN for some reason u want ur nihilism to be true to the point where u will through reason and neutrality out the window . This isnt rational thinking my friend .

[bippy123]

And if JLAFAN had honestly studied both sides of the argument he would have seen this :

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerpaper.pdf
A recent paper by professor Thibault Heimburger, MD which he presented at the 2014 shroud conference which throughly refutes ur pseudo science conspiracy theory which said that the reas sample was switched betwen 1973 and 1976 which has no evidence at all.

I think tomorrow I'm coming out with another special theory of my own. I personally believe that Martians who departed mars to alpha centauri got bored and decided to setup the shroud as an elaborate trick to fool is gullible humans . If bippy123 says it ,it's a done deal .

JLAFAN u also forgot that some student studying for his masters degree is coming out with this theory , anddddd to top it off he isn't going to mention who his mentor is...... Yet.
I think his mentor is a reptilian from the third noon of andor who actually studied under darth Sidious .
The force is strong with you young JLAFAN , henceforth u shall be calleddddddd....... Darth blinkemintonothingness the wise .

Where the heck is yoga when we needdddddddds him
Yodaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa where are uuuuuuuuu????

[bippy123]

Yay for conspiracy theories.

Suspicion is enough !
LOL !

Yep Paul , but I've grown accustomed to jla's little conspiracy theories in which he dogmatically defend a them and won't ever dare to think of researching both sides .when it comes to the shroud JLAFAN seems to prefer conspiracy theories to peer reviewed papers .
And by the way , I'm gonna try to submit a paper to the holy shroud guild in which I talk about how the silver surfer is a real being and not just a cartoon character .

[PaulSacramento]

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

[Philip]

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

IF not, why not start one here (Bippy!)?

[Audie]

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

For balance, how about one that does the opposite?

[PaulSacramento]

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

For balance, how about one that does the opposite?

Isn't that redundant?
I mean, when you are addressing any skeptic ( of anything) the skeptics issues are already being noted.
Or do you mean an article refuting the answers to issues put forth by skeptics?

[Audie]

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

For balance, how about one that does the opposite?

Isn't that redundant?
I mean, when you are addressing any skeptic ( of anything) the skeptics issues are already being noted.
Or do you mean an article refuting the answers to issues put forth by skeptics?

I would not necessarily put it that way, but the site that "debunks" everything about evolution will be what I call a 'creosite" and, you know, the one that "debunks" everything about creationism will be a, what, "evosite"? This seems the same sort of thing.

Personally, I doubt that this shroud is the real thing, just because there is such a long and sorry history of fake relics, and to me its such an unlikely story. And of course, whether it is real or not, there is an awful lot of woo woo that is concocted about it.

Now, if someone were allowed to test it thoroughly and properly, perhaps all could be laid to rest. For whatever reason(s), this apparently has not been done or allowed.

It has a kind of "wake me when its over" aspect to it. IF it turned out to be real, that has profound implications. But so far it is mired in controversy and Im not going to make major life decisions based on controversy.

[Philip]

Personally, I doubt that this shroud is the real thing, just because there is such a long and sorry history of fake relics, and to me its such an unlikely story. And of course, whether it is real or not, there is an awful lot of woo woo that is concocted about it.

Haha, sounds just like FL before he looked into it. My advice: Audie, WAIT until you sift the research and evidence, as subsquently, you'll find incredible and inexplicable attributes that cannot be explained or replicated - even today.

[Jac3510]

My thoughts exactly, philip. And here, just because I figure Audie hasn't been following the thread, which means she probably doesn't know what FL did say, let me just compile his statements here:

---------------------------------------------------------

The Mail does have a lot of tabloid stuff - but it does occasionally link to some interesting articles that it did not originate. The person in question is making some strong claims about the Shroud that are likely easy to refute - which is why this forum topic is so important. Usually what what we see about the Shroud in the press are things that Bip has already redundantly debunked.

The Shroud is akin to the Golden Calfs...

When do we get to dance around it?

FL

(Link)

So just what is THAT supposed to mean???!!!

It means that the Shroud is nothing more than a religious icon. It is a genuine religious icon but is no more a portrait of Jesus than Eastern Orthodox iconography accurately portray the various saints. Moreover, the Shroud doesn't square with Isaiah's revelation of Jesus being a physically nondescript man, not to mention that the Shroud is usually dated to the Middle Ages.

People willingly believe in all manner of foolishness: the Loch Ness & other submarine monsters, sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle, palmistry, horoscope, flying saucers piloted by little green men. The list is endless!

And there are many important reasons to consider it may likely be authentic.

Yeah, right. There is a rack full of magazines at a newstand near my place devoted to horoscope. Maybe I'm wrong about astrology as well...

...making comments like that makes you come off like the idiots on so many atheist forums - as they are constantly striving to be seen as cynically clever and funny, with relentless sarcasm over just about every topic related to Christianity - and often concerning topics that they are woefully ignorant about.

If I were not a Christian, I would say that atheist forums are for dummies. Since I am a Christian, I'll say that the atheist forums I've visited are filled with filthy talk, bad spelling and poor grammar. People who don't seem to have much education congregate there.

I think there is a type of personality that needs mystery or magic...I don't understand why. Both unbelievers and those who believe in God can be prone to such unsubstantiated beliefs.

So...listen, if you want to believe that the Shroud is the real thing, go ahead. As for me, the Shroud is in the same category as Tongues, being slain in the Spirit, KJV Onlyism and so on.

FL

(Link)

FL, it is very clear you have not spent any time reading any of the material presented in this thread. I mean forget the iconic symbolism and all that. If the shroud is acutally authentic, and all indications are that it is, it would be proof positive not only for the death of Christ, but more importantly, compelling evidence for his resurrection. As a Christian surely you ought to take the subject a little more seriously. Or at a minimum refrain from making fun of those who do. But that's just me.

You are right, I haven't bothered to read the material presented in this thread, any more than I bother to read magazines on UFOs... Some things are self-evident: You don't have to be a meteorologist to see that the sky is cloudy. As for the Shroud being ''compelling evidence for his resurrection'' I doubt many non-believers would buy that. For those who would, fine. As I've said before, some people need the paraphernalia of religions: the ceremony, the candles, the holidays, the statues, the icons, the blessed garments/water/oil, the fancy buildings, the genuine shavings of Jesus' cross, the chants...some people need this stuff to solidify/focus/anchor their faith. I'm fine with that.

I don't take the Shroud seriously any more than I take Tongues seriously. Some people need this type of ''evidence'' and the reason probably has more to do with psychology than anything else. Sorry.

FL

(Link)

If you would simply set aside your biases and read the material you would actually see it has nothing to do with icons or relics or psychology and everything to do with as authentic a physical evidence to Christ and his resurrection as any.

Biases? My major objection has to do with Isaiah's description of the Christ vs. the Shroud image. Isaiah spoke of an ordinary-Joe whereas the Shroud shows a muscular man that would have towered over the men of his time.

But I understand your self-inflicted blindess. It is rather unfortunate though since this is precisely the attitude most atheists have towards Christianity.

A funny coincidence here: I was discussing with a UFO enthusiast a few days ago who also insisted that I suffered from ''self-inflicted blindness'' about flying tableware from beyond our Solar System. This guy even suggested that Drake's Equation gave a 50% chance of there being another advanced civilization in our Galaxy. The answer I gave him was something to the effect that he believed anything that argued for his side, and that most of the ''data'' in Drake's Equation was supposition.

FL

(Link)

. What I do care about is Christians knocking other Christians down over a topic they ought to either converge on or at a minimum one side ought to keep quiet out of respect.

I did keep quiet, which is why I didn't participate in this discussion. As for ''knocking over other Christians'', I am not doing that. All I'm saying is, in essence, ''If you want to believe that those shavings actually came from Jesus' cross, go ahead. Set up a home altar to them!''

And really? Are you serious with the Isaiah reference?

Yes, I'm serious.

FL

(Link)

To me I never really cared either way about the shroud.

Same for me.

There is no "muscular man" so I am not sure where that comment came from...

My brother-in-law has a life-size image of the Shroud. It shows a muscular man, more Mr Universe than Mr Everybody. Those who believe the Shroud to be genuine will say that Jesus was a carpenter, so he must have been muscular. I don't know. The only carpenters I've known have been pot-bellied...but - to be honest - I haven't met many carpenters...and carpenters in the first century didn't have pickup trucks, power tools and Miller Time.

The image's height is important. In a world of tall men being 5-foot-5 (1,65m) the ''Shroud Jesus'' would have towered over them. As far as I'm concerned, the Shroud is a fake because of the image's height, its musculature and its repeated dating to the Middle Ages.

But...why is this even important? why does a Shroud thread like this one get over 40,000+ visits?! That in itself is suspicious and leads me to believe that it is the Roman Catholic version of Tongues or YEC vs OEC.

FL

(Link)

Ok, Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!...because Jac and Paul the Canadian guy insist, I'll read the ''evidence'' on the Shroud.

Give me a couple of days. Do I need Gravol?

FL

(Link)

Ok, Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!...because Jac and Paul the Canadian guy insist, I'll read the ''evidence'' on the Shroud.

Give me a couple of days. Do I need Gravol?

FL

I'm going to need more than a couple of days. I've been at this for over two hours and only have reached page 5.

You know what I think would help? (Do you care? Probably not, but I'm going to offer my thoughts anyway!) As this thread is ovr 60 pages now--60 PAGES!!!--it would be nice if someone could sort of offer a summary of the evidence with a list of links that still work. Any takers? It'd be a shame to let such valuable conversation go to waste.

YES!

FL

(Link)

In 1992 while taking photomicrographs of the 1978 Max Frei samples at the Holy Shroud Guild at Esopus, NY, photos from the arm area showed individual image fibers had very sharp boundaries at their ends across the 15-micron diameter of the fibers. At 200x magnification it is seen that these picture elements, or pixels, are very uniformly darkened about 30% over the natural color of the non-imaged fiber. At the boundary between image pixel and clear fiber, there is a sharp change. There is no gradual edge as expected from a shadow mask or external light source. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discountinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed Ok can anyone explain this part to me?

I've only read to page 6 so far. The above quote is from Bippy's post on page 5. There is also a youtube video Bippy posted on page 4 where a woman with a Ph.D. speaks about event horizons... all this sounds Star Trek-ish to me.

It seems that no one answered Bippy's question, ''Ok can anyone explain this part to me?'' above.

I also have the same question. Any takers? Dr Hana?

FL

(Link)

The speed of light in material is lower than the speed of light in vacuum. Until it hit the material the speed was greater.

OK, Thank you Dr. I had assumed that the sentence said that ''light was travelling faster than c, then slowed down as it entered the fiber, then dispersed.''

Now, in the large print below, where did these high-energy particles come from?

It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discountinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed

And this odd youtube clip which may explain the above; what do you make of it?

Ok guys this is a small but very important clip from the dvd the fabric of time and it talks aboutthe impossibility of no distortion on the image, and how its impossible for that to happen if The body of Jesus was lying on the tomb below his body. His body had to have been floating above the rock below him in between the shroud. Plus the image itself shows that the muscles of the body image shows that they werent crushed against the tomb . How could this be unless Jesus was floating in between the top and bottom of the shroud. Fascinating video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmCaindCpg

FL

(Link)

FL, video is too short to make something of it. I need real meat. Maybe reading papers here http://shrouduniversity.com/opticalsciences.php
Also I need to research counter-opinions from other scientists.
Only after that I can give my opinion. (Maybe in a year? )

In one year, I could be dead! Anyway, I think Bippy's post on page 8 answered my question, specifically this link he provided:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf

I am reading every post and every link. I'm on page 8 of this topic so far and am waiting to see what will happen with the Ivellious character as this story unfolds. Did he eventually come to his senses? DON'T TELL ME! I want to find out on my own!

FL

(Link)

I'm up to page 30 of this topic. So far, the only sensible and honest atheist seems to be Pierson5 (pages 20+)...Ivellious disappeared from the discussion and jomc20's brain was stillborn(page 29).

Bippy is right when he says that the Shroud is Kryptonite to atheists.

FL

(Link)

FL, I'm guessing you are as shocked as I was to find out the incredible aspects and level of expert analysis surrounding the Shroud. And what I've found is that few Christians are much aware of it - least not much more than the occasional newspaper article that typically quotes skeptics parroting the same old debunked comments.

Your guess is correct. I was a total ignoramus about the Shroud before reading this thread. I knew only what the secular media chose to report on it. Shame on me! I wish I could take back all the stupid things I said about the Shroud.

FL

(Link)

You say lots of stupid things.

I would like to lodge a formal complaint against this mean Australian. I've spent all morning crying because of his rude comment. I don't know if I'll be well enough to eat my supper. I may have to take to strong drink to dull my pain.

FL

(Link)

Please, express yourself in minichat.Would be pitty to derail this nice thread of Bippy.

Yes, you are right, Doctor. I won't do it again as long as that Australian tea drinker keeps the peace.

I'm at page 38 of this topic. I have to commend Bippy for being very patient with that Tetelesti guy, the one with the Israeli flag avatar.

FL

(Link)

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if FL ever finished the thread, but I hope, Audi, you take it seriously that someone as skeptical as FL actually took the time to read the evidence and was persuaded by it. I'm another such person. I said very, very early in this thread that I didn't know a lot about the topic, so I was interested in how it went. I can further say that I've always been inclined to reject its authenticity, and for the precise reasons you cited. The Church has a TERRIBLE history when it comes to relics.

But THIS relic? This one has LOTS of evidence to back it up. And if I was going to be reasonable, then, like FL, I had to be willing to go where it lead. And it lead me to accept its authenticity. So I hope you do take some time to look through the material!