bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,408
First, "this is really beyond stupid" is the best debunking I have ever heard.Sigh. Your pattern of behavious is dropping links into this thread as if they support your various assertions. When it's pointed out to you that, as often is the case, that they don't.
"Not from the main cloth" is an outright lie.
Yep. He's talking nonsense because, as he admits, he doesn't know where the sub-samples came from. And he actually gets the samples wromng too.
Nonsense.
No he's not. Firstly as Atkinson is forced to admit he doesn't actually know the order of the samples, hence his "gradient" claims is rather dubious.
Damon, the principal author of original Nature paper regarding the radiocarbon results, made no such claims.
View attachment 60023
The samples were fine. The experts discussed the sampling location, the cuts were made, the samples decontaminated and the tests run. You can either accept reality, that the shroud is a medieval construction, or indulge in further fantasisintg.
Bollocks.
I know you've run away, time after time, from addressing the other evidence for the medieval original of the shroud, but they're not going away.
But, as you've apparently gone into full fringe reset mode:
The evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:
1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure. This strongly suggests the shroud only came into existence in the medieval period, rather than the first century.
2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flat (the arms aren't long enough), at least for the vast majority of humanity.
3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period. Likewise the stylised coverage of the genitals.
6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there are no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355
9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue
Oh good grief...... This is really beyond stupid.
Now for your Gish gallop.
#1- There is plenty of evidence for the shroud before the 14th century.
#2- Looks like a human body to me, and who demands that the body had to be lying flat?
#3- So what, linen is not likely to last 2000 years.
#4- The Darci memo is pure hearsay, do I have to provide a definition of hearsay? Darci did not name the fraudster, so that's not admissible.
#5- Yes, Byzantine, because the shroud was known to be in Constantinople around 1204.
#6- Not only with medieval methods, but with 1st century methods as well, doesn't mean jack.
#7- You should know the difference between a pigment and iron oxide or mercury sulfide, no pigments have been found on the shroud.
#8- Just shows your ignorance of 1st century Jewish culture.
#9- Yes there is evidence for blood on the cloth, creatinine and ferritin were found on the shroud.
Keep on enjoying yourself.
