Page 23 of 116

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:04 pm
by bippy123
Pierson5 wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote: Yes it does say multiple cloth, there is the shroud and the sudarium ( the face cloth), there are your multiple cloths.

Dan
Interesting. So I looked up the face cloth (Sudarium). What do you know, just like the shroud (and every other religious relic) it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Sudarium was dated back to 700 CE, the shroud 1300 CE, and the true believers made the same ad hoc hypothesis. The dating methods were flawed. For the shroud in particular I have a hard time accepting that some of the best scientists in the field made these simple errors in their analysis. Granted, scientists aren't infallible, but there are so many similarities with the ad hoc hypothesis when it comes to putting these relics to the test. Now it will not be allowed to be re-tested, by the faithful no less.

Bippy, let's say the shroud was re-tested and the results came back the same. What conclusion would you come to based on these results?

If you bothered to look deeper into the study of the sudarium dating you will notice that the people that it was way too contaminated for an accurate test. It was handled many more times then the shroud .
Again, it has been known for many years that the people in charge of the c14 tests violated many simple protocols, and this was proven allready. In fact the unofficial dating test done had one thread dated to 200 ad and the other thread which had starch on it was dated to 1400 ad. Pierson why dont you ask yourself why these protiocols were violated?, and why didnt the people in charge of the dating take the advice of the experts on the shroud (the sturp team) and impliment those 26 points which would have cleared this whole fiasco up. The fact that they violated these protiocols isnt a hypothesis. Its a known fact now.

Again, they didnt even do the standard chemical analysis? They also told the church that if anyone else other then them had any part in this test that tyhey would discredit the test completely. Does this sound like scientific people to you Pierson? There are many reasons why the church wont allow it to be tested. One of those reasons is the bad taste in their mouth from the whole secular carbon dating fiasco. The secobnd reason is that they dont want anymore pieces of the shrouyd to be destroyed by more tests. The church said that when a more advanced technique is available they would reconsider it.

Pierson, I know its impossible for you to do open minded research on the shroud as you are an atheist and atheism is an emotional worldview, but there is a reason why science, history and many other disciplines are omn the side of authenticity of the shroud and the only people that are against it are people with pseudo skeptic websites like joe nickell.
I proved you wrong on this and many other facts p-ertaining to the shroud, but I know as atheism is only pro science when it fits their worldview that you will still cling to the old and tired arguments on the shroud that have been debunked.

Ray rogers allready showed that the piece used for carbon dating wasnt representative of the rest of the shroud, and rogers was anti shroud as they could get and died an agnostic. There is no disputing this part. True the vanillin tests give a wider range then the c14 tests, but the area that was tested came up positive for vanillin and the rest of the shroud came up negative.

This doesnt even account for the many other c14 tests on relics that were wrong by a few thousand years.
Almost every other evidence points to the shroud being from the 1st century and common sense tells us that no forger would have added microscopic pieces of dirt to the shroud that no one could have seen in those days, bilirubin blood that no medical doctor of those days could have analyzed, and the numerous other evidences that point to this image being that of Jesus Christ.

Pierson dont say that you could not believe that scientists would mess up a c14 dating test, Instead say that you dont want to believe that they were capable of this. The fact is the people in charge of the testing made stupid elemntary mistakes, and for me I truely believe that the people in charge of this testing (not the lab technicians themselves) messed this test up on purpose. If a group of christians were in charge of the c14 testing and 13 elementary protocals were violated you would have been screaming bloody murder, but because the people in charge of the testing were secular atheists you have a hard time believing that secular atheists could have messed this up because they are genuinely interested in the truth.

Why not take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are truely researching this with an open mind and heart. Could it be that maybe you wont like the answers ;) .

You have every reason in your worldview to be afraid of the evidences found on that shroud.
Science even today doesnt have the technology to recreate this image, this image fits the biblical accounts of the crucifixion right down to the last detail.

I have always believed that if someone never had the chance to be properly introduced to Christianity that God wouldnt hold it against them, but you pierson on the other hand are right here in the middle of it. You have every chance to come to Jesus but you wont because of your hardened heart and pride. You are privy to all this information and evidence (moreso then most christians today) so when its your time to be judged You wont have the privelidge of pleading invincible ignorance, and God will say depart from me as I never knew you.

I just hope you can understand the seriousness of your stubborness before you face God himself and its too late.

Your arguments here come from your opinion, you have abandoned the scientific method because it leads to a conclusion that your very uncomfortable with. So much for the vaunted intellect and belief in science of the atheist. YOu will have no one to blame but yourself and there is no excuse you can give to God on that day dude.

May You open your heart to the greatest Love in the universe.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:24 pm
by bippy123
Icthus wrote:I think that sums it up pretty well, bippy. I find it situation with the shroud is similar to that of debate over the resurrection in general. Even if it fails to convince the skeptic, it often forces them into some very odd positions. It's amazing to see the lengths to which some skeptics will go to try to rebut the case for the resurrection or the Shroud--often rather blatantly abandoning that intellectual high ground they often claim in order to cling uncritically to unsound and often uninformed positions, like that Jesus never existed or survived being crucified (I was somewhat surprised to find, recently, a piece by Richard Carrier arguing that there was a very good chance that Jesus could have lived through his ordeal on the cross and everything before and afterward. Needless to say, it was not very convincing, and that's quite an understatement).

I suppose my point is that a truly good debate about the Shroud or the resurrection in generally, even if it fails to convince skeptics, has a way of forcing them to strip down to their presuppositions, which always makes for a revealing discussion to those who pay attention. Regardless of what future tests may reveal concerning the Shroud's authenticity or inauthenticity, it makes an excellent subject for debate, and it deserves more attention than it tends to get. In my experience, a lot of people either don't know about it or consider the debate to be closed (and tend to assume that those who still argue for its authenticity are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society or 9-11 conspiracy theorists). I know I used to think that way. It's a pity, so I'm all the more appreciative of the efforts of those like you who are passionate about Shroud studies and are eager to share information with us Shroud-laypeople.

I'm not so sure about the Shroud as a tool for evangelism, but it's certainly good for opening minds.
Icthus your very welcome, the point is your heart and mind are open enough to see this now, and thats the key to seeking real truth:), and any Good that comes from me doesnt really come from me, it comes from our Lord and savior who is deserving of all of our praise and love :).
The shroud is more of a key then most people will admit because the evidence is so heavy in leaning to one direction, and your right about the shroud exposing the atheist as someone who really doesnt care about evidence. I see atheists as people who deep down inside believe in Gods existence, but they dont want to give up their pride, vanity and supposed freedom to think and do what they want.

Professor John Jackson has an awesome video that shows that this image could only have been made from a real body, and once you show this, the inescapable fact is that no other phenomena makes sense of this image other then the resurrection. There are no side images, but how could this be if the shroud wrapped around a live body, there is 3d spatial information which fades at a distance of 10 centimeters and its been shown that the image was not formed from bodily contact. Common sense tells us that the body was floating in between the inner top and inner bottom of the shroud.
There is no technology today that could cause the complete loss of gravity and allow a body to give off xray information from the inside. The only thing that makes sense of this is exactly what the gospels talk about and thats the resurrection.
Suddenly a true truth seeker will understand why the 12 apostles who started out as wimps who were scared for their own lives and denied knowing Jesus, suddenly turned into brave warriors who happily died because they saw the resurrected Lord. Heck, Peter even asked to be crucified upside down because he wasnt worthy to die as Jesus died.

But an atheist in denial Like pierson must deny any evidence that liniks to Jesus and the resurrection at all costs, even if it means denying reason , logic, science and common sense. Instead they cling to a rediculous worldview with no ultime truth, no objective moral values, no true right or wrong and love is only a series of complex chemical reactions in their brain. What a valueless and meaningless worldview. No wonder why most atheists spend so much time trying to debunk Christianity.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:41 am
by bippy123
Danieltwotwenty wrote:One thing I did notice is that the Sudarium is first mentioned in 570 in an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, which is well before the radio carbon date of 7th century.

y:-?
Correct Daniel, but someone like Pierson who only wants to see what he wants to see would not research it deep enough to know this because it would cause doubts to creep into his extreme atheist, anti-scientific world view.

If he had dug even deeper into the c14 tests he would have also seen what the scientist who did the test said about it concerning the way the sudarium had been handled throughout history.

Daniel nice find on antoninus, and in 570 he says the sudarium is being kept in a cave near the monastery of Saint Mark, in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This is historic evidence that tells of the shroud being in Jerusalem . Now we know that during the first few hundred years of Christianity that it was a crime to even be a practicing Christian so Christians were being persecuted and killed by Jews and Romans during this time. Imagine a Christian parading the shroud or sudarium around and proclaiming that they were the burial garments of our lord and savior. Not only would they have been killed but both relics would have been taken away from them and destroyed, and we would never have known about them today. I'm very sure this would have pleased Pierson as it would make his job as an atheist much much easier without him abandoning science, logic and common sense in order to deny the authenticity of the shroud lol. The sudarium has over 70 points of congruence with the shroud and in a court of law only 25 points of congruence were needed to make a match.

If Pierson were an honest atheist   
He would have dug even deeper and found that the shroud has an overwhelming amount of congruent points with the iconographs that started in 550 ad which is also indisputable. There is very little doubt that the icono images used in the churches starting at 550 ad match the shroud almost perfectly.

If he really wanted more he would have realized that the pollen samples found on the sudarium match it's journey from Palestine to Africa and so on perfectly in accordance to it's historical records, but as we all know Pierson isn't interested in finding the truth. He must prove the shroud and sudarium wrong at all costs, because of the threat that it poses to his ultimately meaningless worldview, even if it means getting his information from pseudoskeptic sites that don't research the peer review literature.

I'm still busy with my online project but everytime I see Pierson posting nonpeer reviewed nonsense I'll be here to correct him thoroughly.

He's actually hurting his cause even more this way because the more he posts, the more we correct him and the more information gets put on this thread and when honest truth seekers weigh the evidence they will see who is posting facts and who is posting out of denial of the facts.

Pierson, God is using you for his greater glory and you don't even know it :)
God bless

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:33 pm
by bippy123
""Interesting. So I looked up the face cloth (Sudarium). What do you know, just like the shroud (and every other religious relic) it didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Sudarium was dated back to 700 CE, the shroud 1300 CE, and the true believers made the same ad hoc hypothesis."""

Pierson actually just debunked the c14 dating results for me. Remember forensic evidence show that the shroud and sudarium wrapped around the same body. Once this is determined you can see that the shroud is at least as old as the sudarium and the first written report of the sudarium was in 570 ad. Correct me if im wrong Pierson, but doesnt this fact alone destroy the c14 dating tests? Now if you take into account the legend of king akbar that takes the shroud all the way back to sometime in 33-34 ad. Now lets take all of the other evidences out of the equation and just deal with the shroud being as old as the sudarium and therefore being here in 570ad. You now have an image that is even too sofisticated for modern science to recreate. How then could anyone in 570 ad could have created this image, with no knowledge of photography, no knowledge of lasers and then on top of that you have a dye found in the patched area that wasnt used until the 14th or 15th century. The person in 570 ad had to have a knowledge of forensic science and pollen expertise as well as 1st century textiles and first century jewish burial customs.

Even the agnostic anti-shroud critic Wesselow understands how strong the evidence is for the shroud being the shroud that covered our lord and savior and he exercises some damage control in his newest book which claims that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus but it wasnt caused by his resurrection but by a natural cause (he doesnt know what natural cause it is lol), and then he hypothesises that the disciples converted to christianity because they saw that image on the cloth lol.
This is the length that unbelievers will go to in order to deny the evidences placed in front of them.

Ok back to my online project. Pierson, if you post more of the usual nonsense i will be here to debunk it.
Big Hug to you my friend:)

pierson like I said before try your luck at evolution, the shroud is only going to put doubts into your head about your worldview :mrgreen:

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:33 pm
by Pierson5
bippy123 wrote: //www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF this is peer reviewed in the chemical journal of thermochimica acta.
I linked to that same article in my previous post. You could have just saved the pages of text and said, that is correct, that is the current hypothesis regarding the shroud :ewink:

On that note, take it easy on the atheist thing and passive aggressive religious comments, it's irrelevant. There are plenty of Christians/other faiths who have the same issues with the shroud as I am bringing up. KCBid voiced his concerns briefly before, for example.
bippy123 wrote:This alone debunked the c14 dating. The vanillin tests show the shroud to also be much older then the carbon dating tests.
I was doing some reading and found a few problems with the invisible patch hypothesis:

Arguments against the Shroud of Turin invisible patch theory
1. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch
There is no known method of patching a material like the Shroud of Turin that would produce a patch that could have been undetected by the people that have inspected the shroud. See the article by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (//www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf) for a good discussion of this point.

By the way, afaik Antonacci is actually someone who believes the shroud may be genuine, but he was at least honest enough to explain in print why Ray Rogers suggestion of a patch is quite impossible:
In the last couple of years various parties have been claiming that medieval restorers could make repairs to textiles in a way that could fool the naked eye. For purposes of debate, let us assume this is true. However, a second assumption is still required to support Rogers above assertion, i.e. that such an invisible repair was made on the Shroud at the radiocarbon site. Such a repair would stand in stark contrast to the numerous other repairs performed on the Shroud, which are easily visible with the naked eye (and were performed after the 1260-1390 age range erroneously attributed to the Shroud.) Yet, in this case, the argument that such a masterful repair
was made to the Shroud also requires a third assumption that this repair was also kept secret for some reason from the public and from all historical record.

There would certainly be no need to keep this a secret from the public or from any private records among the owners, or any number of church officials or members, or by the masterful restorer(s). To repair the Shroud is certainly
nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, it would be something to be proud of. Assuming the repair was so excellent that no one (to this day) could even see where it occurred would be something to be very proud of. In light of this there should have been some record, as there was with most events involving the Shroud, among the notable and numerous Savoy family records, or by any other owners, custodians, priests, monks, nuns, or textile specialists or restorers.

The question of whether an assumed secretive repair was made that would fool the naked eye is actually a secondary issue. Even if you make all three assumptions (the last two of which are clearly unwarranted), they still do not address two overriding issues required to be overcome to prove a repair hypothesis. One overriding question is whether such an assumed secretive repair can also fool photomicroscopy. Since medieval restorers would not have had the extensive magnification abilities or techniques available today, it is extremely unlikely they would be able to repair cloth in a manner that would be undetected by subsequent magnification, as the Shroud has been clearly subjected to. As can be seen in the above Centro photomicrograph (and by further direct examination below) the radiocarbon site does not appear to have been repaired, but appears to be a continuation of the larger cloth (nor does Rogers illustrate, cite or allege in his paper that photomicrographs support his conclusion ).

Furthermore, there must have been a hole of some kind that required a patch or new material to be placed over it. Moreover, the patch or added material must be attached to the larger Shroud in some permanent manner. Even if you assume that some form of secretive invisible to the naked eye type of patch or reweave was made at the radiocarbon site, it must have been attached to the larger Shroud in some permanent manner that would have survived the very real stress, stretching and pull that the Shroud was subjected to from having been rolled repeatedly and stored on a spool for over 400 years.

In 2002, the backing cloth was removed which had been attached to the Shroud for centuries. An examination of the back of the cloth confirmed what the many previous examinations, photographs and photomicrographs of the front of the Shroud revealed : that the Shroud had not been patched at the radiocarbon site. The words of Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, one of the world's leading textile experts on ancient textiles and the Shroud of Turin, and who specifically led the examination and restoration of the Shroud in 2002, are particularly illuminating on these questions. Following the Shroud's lengthy examination and restoration she stated:

I would like to add here a note on the hypothetical reweaving done in the 16 century. There is no doubt that the Shroud does not contain any reweaving. The fabric is scattered with irregularities which are the result of faults made during the weaving process, and which could be mistaken for reweaving. But they are normal for fabrics of the early periods. Such irregularities are actually proof that a fabric has been woven on a hand-loom which points to an early date of origin of the fabric. Reweaving in the literal sense does not exist. Once the piece of fabric is taken off the loom the weaving process is finished. Aterwards one can only alter a fabric by using needle and thread. An example would be a hole which has been mended by imitating its weave structure. This process will always be recognizable as mending and in any case visible on the reverse of the fabric.

Professor Giuseppe Ghiberti, the Vatican Scientific Advisor for the Shroud and a participant at the 2002 examination and restoration also state's :

The truth is that there is no patch and no darn. During the last analysis made in 2002, when we carried out restoration and cleaning operations, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (the leading world scholar on ancient textiles) examined the Shroud very carefully and concluded that there are no added threads. Beyond any doubt, there is no textile patch or darn in this linen. After 500 years, the (Holland) backcloth was completely removed and we were able to see the backside: there is no darn at all.

Moreover, you apply a patch or a darn where there is a hole, while the samples had been removed in a corner area with no scorched holes and no medieval darns. I am astonished that a scholar such as Rogers has written so many inaccuracies in his article.
//www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

The Vatican's own science adviser and the Vatican’s own textile expert both examined the C14 site in detail, inc. studying photo-micrographs, from both sides of the shroud after the backing cloth was removed in 2002. All that is necessary to falsify the above is to publish a single example of a fabric that has been repaired in a way that would have been undetected by the kind of examination that the shroud was given.

2. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability
Even if it was possible to produce an invisible patch today the difficulties would have been much greater in the sixteenth century before the widespread availability of magnifying glasses and before the development of the compound microscope. Not only does the lack of magnifying capability add another layer of difficulty, why would somebody create a patch that was only detectable with magnifying capability when no such capability was widely available?

3. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century
It would have been difficult if not impossible in the 16th century to create a new piece of fabric that so precisely matched the characteristics of a 1st century piece of fabric that the new material would not have been detected during the very careful examinations that the shroud has undergone particularly in 1982 when the cloth was carefully examined by STURP and in 2002 when the shroud backing was removed and restoration work was done on the shroud.

A common way of doing what is called "invisible mending" today is to take material from an inconspicuous place on the garment because it is difficult to match the existing threads well enough to fool the eye. If this was done on the shroud the C14 date wouldn't have been affected so that new material for the patch would have been required.

4. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud
A microscopic examination was done of the C14 sample material by Arizona scientists (Rachel A. Freer-Waters and A. J. Timothy Jull) and the area was observed to match other areas of the shroud in weave size and pattern.

The provenance of the sample they examined and photographed microscopically is well documented. The Arizona scientists made careful measurements of various properties of their shroud sample and found that they matched precisely the data about the shroud.

One of the main pieces of evidence put forth by Rogers that the C14 samples were done in an area where there was an invisible patch was that the C14 test area had traces of dye that weren't present in the main shroud. Freer-Waters and Jull did not find any signs of dyeing that was reported by Rogers on their C14 sample. Overall this paper provides a complete refutation of the Rogers' paper and it provides overwhelming evidence that the C14 test area was representative of the overall shroud.

5. Patch area was very carefully selected
The area for the patch was carefully selected after a month of careful study. There is no way that the scientists and scholars could not have seen that the samples they removed were from a patch.

See //freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm for a discussion of this.

6. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already?
There is no apparent reason why somebody would attempt an invisible repair of the shroud when the shroud had numerous conventional patches already.

7. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch
There is no documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch on the shroud in existence today despite the fact that much of the history of the shroud was well documented and that history is available today.

8. Consistent banding through the C14 sample area
The threads in the C14 sample have the same density pattern as the threads in the adjoining areas.

This argument was put forth by Antonacci among others. This goes back to the reference earlier: //www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf. The argument is that there is a density pattern in the shroud that produces a kind of banding pattern when the shroud is carefully observed and that this banding pattern passes through the C14 sample area without any breaks or variations. This means that the individual making the hypothetical invisible patch to the shroud not only needed to make a patch with undetectable ends he needed to make a patch with threads that precisely matched the density of surrounding threads. The level of difficulty to make such a patch would be extreme even today. That such a patch would have been made in the 16th century is obviously nonsense. I didn't find a good visible light photograph to demonstrate this (Antonacci references them in his article but the on-line article doesn't have them) but here is the radiograph of the area:

Image

9. Consistent C14 results throughout the sample area
At least some of the invisible patch theory involves the notion that C14 sample site consisted of a mixture of old and new threads. The C14 test results were significantly consistent with each other. If the C14 sample area consisted of a mixture of fabric from different times the sample area would need to have consisted of the same ratio of old and new thread throughout the sample.

This is a strong argument against the idea of a local reweave where part of the original shroud remained. The hypothetical patch not only needed to be undetectable by normal microscopic examination but the patch area need to have retained the same amount of original material throughout the sample area.

10. Schwalbe and Rogers: PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN A Summary of the 1978 Investigation. The most relevant part of the Schwalbe/Rogers paper with regard to this issue may be contained in note 6 of their report:
6. Morris et al. [9] were concerned that the detected trace elements may not have been uniquely associated with the Shroud. The ambiguity arose because the Holland backing cloth could not be removed from the Shroud for the measurements; technically, their data pertain to the double-cloth system. However, thirteen threads, removed from non-image, non-blood areas of the Shroud in November 1973 [41], were brought to America following the Turin study. X-ray fluorescence measurements were made on these with isotope sources of 55Fe, 109Cd, 145Sm, and 57Co for counting periods of 500-1000 min. These results showed roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium,strontium,and iron that were observed in the original 1978 Turin data. In addition, they showed smaller traces of potassium, chlorine, and possibly lead. The small sizes of the thread samples precluded quantitative estimates for these traces, but the later results suggest that the reported Turin measurements do pertain to the Shroud. It sounds like the purpose of the original X-ray fluorescence testing of the thirteen threads was to establish that the results from the X-ray.
In that Quote, STURP member Rogers is himself claiming that STURP's own X-ray fluorescence tests were made on both the main shroud itself (inc the backing cloth) AND also on 13 threads from the Raes sample, with the result that the relative concentrations of Calcium, Strontium and Iron were found to be similar for both the Raes threads (without the backing cloth) and the main body of the shroud (with it’s backing cloth).

That’s what STURP themselves were claiming in 1980.

That was ten years before Rogers and STURP knew that C14 results would later show the shroud to date from the 13th-14th century.

So in 1980, Ray Rogers on behalf of STURP was writing to say that their X-ray fluorescence results confirmed that the Raes threads were indistinguishable from the rest of the shroud. But then 25 years later, when Rogers wanted to discredit the C14 dates, he was writing to say that threads claimed to be from the C14 sample, which came from right next to the Raes threads and were therefore expected to be entirely similar to the Raes threads, were now claimed to be so completely different as to indicate an invisible patch from some unknown material that had been added 1500 years after he believed the shroud was made!

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:48 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
Hey Bippy

I had a thought, I was reading up on radio carbon dating and how they measure the decay of the C14 radioisotope and was wondering IF the dating IS accurate could the results have been skewed when the image was created. If the image was some form of light radiation at Christ's resurrection (re-irradiating the cloth) could this have slowed the decay rate of the C14 to give a wrong result when tested?

Dan

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:19 pm
by Swimmy
This argument was put forth by Antonacci among others. This goes back to the reference earlier: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf. The argument is that there is a density pattern in the shroud that produces a kind of banding pattern when the shroud is carefully observed and that this banding pattern passes through the C14 sample area without any breaks or variations. This means that the individual making the hypothetical invisible patch to the shroud not only needed to make a patch with undetectable ends he needed to make a patch with threads that precisely matched the density of surrounding threads. The level of difficulty to make such a patch would be extreme even today. That such a patch would have been made in the 16th century is obviously nonsense. I didn't find a good visible light photograph to demonstrate this (Antonacci references them in his article but the on-line article doesn't have them) but here is the radiograph of the area:
I'm hoping everyone can get the Irony in this. Apparently someone can go to absurd levels and against all precedent and have specialize knowledge in many areas[forensics as well) in forging the shroud. That's completely plausible. But someone masking a invisible patch repair on the shroud. Well that's just down right preposterous y#-o

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:08 pm
by Pierson5
Swimmy wrote:Apparently someone can go to absurd levels and against all precedent and have specialize knowledge in many areas[forensics as well) in forging the shroud.
For example?

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:46 pm
by bippy123
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hey Bippy

I had a thought, I was reading up on radio carbon dating and how they measure the decay of the C14 radioisotope and was wondering IF the dating IS accurate could the results have been skewed when the image was created. If the image was some form of light radiation at Christ's resurrection (re-irradiating the cloth) could this have slowed the decay rate of the C14 to give a wrong result when tested?

Dan
Dan, there are a few scientists that theorize that this could have happened, I believe that a few like john Jackson the scientist working with mark antonacci said that a radiation even could have released neutrinos onto the cloth adding extra c14 that could have made the shroud look newer to c14 tests than it really is, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is great evidence for invisible reweaving being done on the shroud. Textile experts that were brought in attested to the great expertise of these experts from the middle ages. Plus ray Rogers found specific dyes that were predominantly used in the middle ages, plus the cotton splice that Rogers found. You also can't discount the vanillin tests which show that on every other area on the shroud other than the c14 testing area it tests negative for vanillin that make it much older than the c14 tests show. For example when the dead sea scrolls were tested they also tested negative for vanillin.
Granted the range is much wider than c14 tests but it's value is that the vanillin tests show it to be much older than the now invalidated c14 test shows.

Right now we have to go by Rogers research as it is hard science, and for Rogers , who was a hard ore skeptic of the shrouds authenticity to do a complete 360 and to believe that the shroud was probably the burial shroud of Jesus is amazing, and this is based on the scientific evidence. Remember Rogers is an agnostic and stated on video that he doesn't believe in miracles. He believed it probably was the shroud of the historical Jesus, but his world IWW wouldn't allow him to go further than that.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:52 pm
by bippy123
Swimmy wrote:
This argument was put forth by Antonacci among others. This goes back to the reference earlier: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf. The argument is that there is a density pattern in the shroud that produces a kind of banding pattern when the shroud is carefully observed and that this banding pattern passes through the C14 sample area without any breaks or variations. This means that the individual making the hypothetical invisible patch to the shroud not only needed to make a patch with undetectable ends he needed to make a patch with threads that precisely matched the density of surrounding threads. The level of difficulty to make such a patch would be extreme even today. That such a patch would have been made in the 16th century is obviously nonsense. I didn't find a good visible light photograph to demonstrate this (Antonacci references them in his article but the on-line article doesn't have them) but here is the radiograph of the area:
I'm hoping everyone can get the Irony in this. Apparently someone can go to absurd levels and against all precedent and have specialize knowledge in many areas[forensics as well) in forging the shroud. That's completely plausible. But someone masking a invisible patch repair on the shroud. Well that's just down right preposterous y#-o
Swimmy, again that is the beauty of the shroud. It exposes atheists for what they are, anti reason, anti science and anti logic, unless of course the evidence favors their beliefs. The shroud exposes the distinction between science and atheism.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:21 pm
by bippy123
Pierson, im sorry but it is clear that you are not doing the full research on the shroud and out of all the evidence that points favorably towards its authenticity you are nitpicking by ignoring the mountain of evidence and posting a few of the negative articles on the shroud. Well lets take mechthild's claim and lets see what the chemists and other textile experts, (especially in the art of reweaving) say about this. I know that you havent looked at both sides, but thats what im here for buddy ;) . Oh also, please dont compare yourself with KBCI as a skeptic of the shroud, because KBCI was honest enough to point out that his opinion of the shroud is based on His opinion, not on the scientific and historical evidence of the shroud.
Your trying to make claims that science and history prove the shroud to be a forgery, and your using old arguments that have allready been debunked. I know you dont like science Pierson, but what can i say :mrgreen:


http://shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf
Entry: #39
Date: 2005
Data Category: Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving

Evidence: In response to a claim by textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who claimed in a
personal communication to Benford and Marino in November 2000 that an ―invisible reweave‖
was technically impossible, they contacted the president and owner of Without A Trace, Inc.
(www.withoutatrace.com) in Chicago, IL, Mr. Michael Ehrlich. Mr. Ehrlich‘s response to Flury-
Lemberg‘s statement was that the modern-day, time-saving technique for large repairs, called
―Inweaving,‖ would indeed be invisible from the surface but easily recognizable from the back
as she claimed. However, the technique used in 16th Century Europe, called ―French Weaving,‖
is an altogether different technique from Inweaving. French Weaving, now only done on small
imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side ―invisibility.‖
Erlich also wrote, ―Today, there is a modern, time-saving technique called ‖inweaving‘ that
would be invisible from the surface, but easily recognizable from the back. However, the
technique used in sixteenth century Europe called ―French weaving‖ is an entirely different
matter. French weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is, indeed, invisible.
Sixteenth century owners of the Shroud certainly had enough material resources and weeks of
time at their disposal to accomplish the task.

Source: Personal communication to M.Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, 2005 and Balsiger,
David W. and Michael Minor. The Case for Christ‘s Resurrection. Orlando: Bridge-Logos,
2007, pg. 159.
Evidence: Robert Villareal, an analytical chemist from Los Alamo s Laboratories, who had been
given Raes samples from Ray Rogers, presented new evidence at an international Shroud
conference based on his work with 8 other researchers. Villarreal had studied a spliced fiber
from the Raes sample (Thread #1) at Ray Rogers‘ request. The 2 ends of the fiber appeared to be
different in color and amounts of coating. Rogers had asked if Villarreal could use his highly
sensitive lab instrumentation to analyze the thread. In addition, Villarreal was also asked (by
Rogers‘ colleague Barrie Schwortz of STURP and Benford) to analyze two other threads
(Threads #7 & 14) from John Brown‘s lab in Marietta, Georgia. Sadly, Rogers died before the
work was completed. Villareal primarily used a Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass
Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) and a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) with
Reflectance Mode Capability.
The ToF-SIMS results showed that the spectra from the two ends were similar to cotton rather
than linen (flax). After several scans of individual fibers from Thread #1, the FTIR data
demonstrated that the 2 ends were definitely cotton and not linen (flax). The crust appeared to be
an organic-based resin, perhaps a terpene species, with cotton as a main sub-component. The
final results of the FTIR analysis on all three fibers taken from the Raes sampling area (adjacent
to the C-14 sampling corner) led to identification of the fibers as cotton and definitely not linen
(flax).

Source: Analytical Results On Thread Samples Taken From The Raes Sampling Area (Corner)
Of The Shroud Cloth by Robert Villarreal with Barrie Schwortz and M. Sue Benford. Presented
at ―The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multi-Faceted Enigma‖ conference in Columbus,
Ohio on August 14-17
th
2008, which will be accessible online at
www.ohioshroudconference.com by January 1, 2009.

Comments: Villarreal pointed out that one of the first rules of radiocarbon dating is that any
sample analyzed to characterize an area or population must necessarily be representative of the
whole. Villarreal‘s analyses of the 3 thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling
corner led him to conclude that this was not the case.
Mechthild was wrong, and was proven wrong not only by a professional reweaving company thatstill did french reweaving but also by rogers chemical analysis that was peer reviewed and there has not been a peer reviewed refutation of Rogers since the paper was published. Using antonacci's work which was debunked easily through his email correspondences with rogers shows that Antonacci isnt qualified as a chemist or textile expert. As far as Mechthild she is totally wrong about the reweave (as stated in my top quoted response).


CONCLUSION:

Entry: #45
Date: 2008
Data Category: Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving

Evidence: ―The Quad-Mosaic images, radiographic findings, textile evidence from the adjacent
Raes sample, blinded-expert analysis of the Zurich C-14 sub-sample, and independent
microscopic confirmation of surface contaminates in the Holland cloth/C-14 region supports
(Ray) Rogers‘ assertion that a surface dye was added to the Shroud in the area of the 1988
radicarbon sampling to disguise an undocumented repair…Also consistent with the data is the
hypothesis that the person(s) responsible…also extracted a small section of main Shroud cloth
directly adjacent to the side seam and missing ventral corner, e.g., the C-14 sampling area…To
hide the extraction, the missing material would have been patched and surface dyed, along with
the newer backing material, such that it would not have been detected. Starch, which was
identified in this area, was routinely used by medieval restorers to disguise invisible mending…

Source: Benford M.Sue and Marino Joseph G. ―Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of
the Turin shroud, ―Chemistry Today (26:4, Jul/Aug 2008), pp. 8-9.

Comments: Chemistry Today is a peer-reviewed journal based in Milan, Italy (www.chemistry-
today.com ). This summary shows the strength of the claim that the C-14 sample used in the
1988 testing was NOT representative of the main cloth and thus was NOT valid for determining
the true age of the cloth.

My guess is that your running out of pseudo-skeptical evidence against the shroud, but then again your an atheist, and you dont have much choice other then to keep denying the shroud's authenticity in front of the mountain of positive information that contradicts your position, but please dont let me throw any doubts into your head :ewink:

Got anything more you can scrounge up for me :mrgreen:

We could go into Rogers finds of the dyes that were used in the 16th century but I think I have given enough here to thoroughly debunk your allready weak stance:)

Pierson, I think one day im gonna be in church and im gonna see right there across from me praising the Lord, believe me it will be a happy sight for the both of us
God bless

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:57 pm
by Pierson5
bippy123 wrote:I know that you havent looked at both sides, but thats what im here for buddy ;) .

My guess is that your running out of pseudo-skeptical evidence against the shroud, but then again your an atheist, and you dont have much choice other then to keep denying the shroud's authenticity in front of the mountain of positive information that contradicts your position, but please dont let me throw any doubts into your head :ewink:

Got anything more you can scrounge up for me :mrgreen:

Pierson, I think one day im gonna be in church and im gonna see right there across from me praising the Lord, believe me it will be a happy sight for the both of us
God bless
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I guess I'll have to look into it and see if I can scrounge up some more for ya. The evolution thread takes up most of my time (gotta be at the hospital today). Who knows, maybe you're right and I'll see you in church one day ;).

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:17 am
by bippy123
Your very welcome Pierson , evolution is a tough subject. Speaking as a former theistic evolutionist, I used to get so excited about ancient animals, and a part of me still is, but since I took up studying the shroud 3 years back my study on Permian, and Carboniferous life has taken a huge back seat.

Seeing you at church would be awesome dude, I would be the first to shake your hand and welcome you in:)

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:50 pm
by Swimmy
The one issue I have is that I cant find anything reliable to confirm the Shroud has AB blood on it.. Like scientific journals or anything. It seems most of these claims are found in books. But I can't find the actual studies.
Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don’t want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.

Re: Shroud of Turin

Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:55 pm
by bippy123
Swimmy wrote:The one issue I have is that I cant find anything reliable to confirm the Shroud has AB blood on it.. Like scientific journals or anything. It seems most of these claims are found in books. But I can't find the actual studies.
Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don’t want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.
Hey Swimmy, its been a while since I went through the AB tests. There was one test done by Baima Ballone in turin and independently confirmed later on by Dr Victor Tryon. Ill try to find the publications where they published these findings at, but Stephen Jones's blog is fantastic at this and is using this info as part of a devestating critique to another book written by an atheist trying to cast some nibblets of doubt against the shroud. Ill try to post a link also to his main webpage where he has TONSSS of info on the shroud accumulated over many many years. Opps just found it a minute later :mrgreen:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html

Here is part of the article

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... in_28.html
And as for Freeman's claim that, "the AB result which is the work of only one independent researcher (Baima Ballone) and has not been replicated," this also is false, because in 1993, "Dr Victor Tryon ... established that the sample was human blood of the AB group, just as Baima-Bollone had before them":

"On ... 21 April 1988 ... after having cut off the snippets of the Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, the Italian microscopist Dr Giovanni Riggi took a 1.5 mm `blood' sample from the back-of-the-head region. In June 1993 he provided some of this sample to a visiting American microbiology professor, Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdès, who took it back for analysis at the University of Texas' Center for Advanced DNA Technologies at San Antonio, Texas. There [in September 1994] the laboratory director, Dr Victor Tryon, and his technician wife, Nancy Mitchell Tryon, quickly established that the sample was human blood of the AB group, just as Baima-Bollone had before them." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," 2000, pp.76-77).