- The following is the latest, rough outline of my case. Further breakdowns -- and sources -- will come later.
- I claim that the probability of there being a flaw in the carbon dating is significantly greater than the probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate portrayal.
1. The scientific PROCESSES surrounding the carbon dating were, themselves, suspect.
1.1. The protocols to which the involved laboratories agreed were abandoned by the church officials.
1.1.1. The number of labs involved was reduced from 7 to 3 – one of the labs being eliminated was that of Harry Gove.
1.1.2. The 7 individual samples stipulated were reduced to 3.
1.1.3. The individual samples were supposed to be taken from different areas on the cloth, instead they were taken from one small corner (less than 3 inches by less than ½ inch -- .03% of the entire Shroud).
1.1.4. (This corner, and one other corner, would be the worst possible representatives of the greater shroud except for the obvious patches.)
1.1.5. Only one dating process was used rather than the two stipulated by the scientists.
1.1.6. The two persons involved in the actual cutting of the sample did not include an independent textile expert (Madame Flury-Lemberg was supposed to do the cutting).
1.1.7. No lab reps were permitted to observe the entire cutting and sorting procedures. There were no observers, or video, of the final sorting.
1.1.8. The overall sample included only 7 square centimeters rather than the stipulated 12½.
1.1.9. No real control samples could be provided to the labs – the unique weave of the Shroud precluded the necessary “blindness.”
1.2. (Statistics)
1.3. (Weight)
1.4. (something else...)
1.5. (Emotionality and Bias)
1.6. There had been no chemical or physical testing to make sure that the sample was truly representative of the greater shroud.
1.7. But, in 2004, Ray Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
1.8. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.9. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
1.10. Carbon dating is not foolproof, whatever, and is only part of the evidence.
2. The probability that a 14th century artisan would, could and did create such a Biblically, and scientifically, accurate piece of art approaches zero.
2.1. Despite the Shroud being at least 600 years old, and one of the most studied ancient artifacts of all time, it still cannot be fully reproduced, or explained, by modern artists or scientists.
2.2. There is significant HISTORICAL evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.3. There is significant SCIENTIFIC evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260.
2.4. The evidence we have NECESSITATES the conclusion that the image on the Shroud is SOME SORT OF IMPRINT of a recently tortured and crucified human being.
2.4.1. There are scientifically accurate aspects of the image and “bloodstains” of such a victim that a 14th century artisan would not know about, be able to see, be able to depict or have reason to depict.
2.4.2. It is not a painting.
2.4.3. It includes real blood that was not painted on.
2.5. The evidence we have ALMOST necessitates the conclusion that the recently tortured and crucified human body actually WAS that of the Biblical Jesus.
2.5.1. This body was wounded precisely as was the Biblical Jesus – in some instances contrary to tradition and art, but consistent with the Bible and science.
2.5.2. In other words, a would-be forger would need to be sociopathic, have an expert’s understanding of the critical passages of the Bible, be willing to ignore accepted traditions and be able to inflict all the appropriate wounds and abrasions.
2.6. If the statements above are true, we are forced to consider the following:
2.6.1. How likely is it that someone would choose to do this?
2.6.2. How likely is it that this person would be able to do it
2.6.3. How likely is it that someone in the 14th century would be able to do it so accurately?
2.6.4. How likely is it that “he” would KNOW HOW TO CAUSE THIS BODY TO LEAVE AN IMPRINT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
2.6.5. How likely is it that he would create such a perfect image on his first try? And,
2.6.6. And, how likely is it that he would resort to multiple attempts?
- Hey! Hey! Hey!
--- Jabba
?