Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
Olowkow said:
No, they're wrong. 16th century threads contaminating a 1st century cloth would give a 17th century date. You would need 13th century threads (or 6th and 7th century threads) sewn into 1st century cloth to get a 14th century date. (13+1=14) :rolleyes:

Carbon 14 is used for 14th century dates only. For 17th century dates, use C17. You can get a bottle of C17H13N3O5S2 Phthalylsulfathiazole probably at Sam's Club.

Walmart carries 13th century thread manufactured in some mideast country.
Click to expand...

Roight! The "Store Which Must Not Be Named"...

WaLDEMORT!
 
GT/CS said:
Sorry about possibly bringing this thread back on topic for at least a post or two, but will someone please direct me to any research or posts regarding the re-woven thread theory?

In particular, what I hope to understand is how the RC dates correspond to where each was cut from the shroud. I watched a program where someone claimed 16th century threads were woven into the original shroud, creating the 14th century date from the testing. It's an old theory but what caught my attention on this program was how they chronologically lined up each sample in order from where it was originally on the shroud. The problem, as I see it, is that the distribution of the samples won't ever get them to the 1st century.

My guess is that it's been discussed here but I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to find anything in this thread.

Thanks

Thanks
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, GT/CS!
Difficult?
Not really.
There's a 'search this thread' function that makes finding anything on this thread easy.

Which TV show was it you saw?
This one?
 
Monza said:
Whoa?! Are you saying that there is wine on the shroud?
Click to expand...

Mrs Don gets quite cross when I spill red wine on a t-shirt, I can only imagine how mad she'd get it I spilled it all over the burial shroud of Christ.

If there is wine on the shroud, in my experience a 90 degree wash using a non-bio washing powder with a pre-wash does the job.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
Okay, I could sort of understand the "using cute naked Japanese women as a tablecloth" idea. But eating off an ugly, hairy, allegedly dead guy's picture? I just don't want to know who'd do that.
Click to expand...


Nah, it's a tablecloth.

They were funny people back then. Eating off the dead body of Jesus is very reverential, it recalls his very own crucifixion words saying the bread and wine are his own body and blood to be consumed in remembrance of him, right?

If you look very carefully in the corner you can still make out the faint remains of a makers lable with washing instructions.
 
Monza said:
Akhenaten said:
As with most things in the Two Lands, wine was considered to be somewhat sacred (owing in part to its resemblance to bluuuuurd) whereas beer was regarded pretty much as a food group, as is only right and proper.
Click to expand...


Whoa?! Are you saying that there is wine on the shroud? If it can be shown that wine existed in the first century and did not exist in the fourteenth century, we may be on to something.
Click to expand...


Exactly the line of thinking I was fishing for by mentioning "bluuuuurd".

:)

I love this place.
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Sorry about possibly bringing this thread back on topic for at least a post or two, but will someone please direct me to any research or posts regarding the re-woven thread theory?

In particular, what I hope to understand is how the RC dates correspond to where each was cut from the shroud. I watched a program where someone claimed 16th century threads were woven into the original shroud, creating the 14th century date from the testing. It's an old theory but what caught my attention on this program was how they chronologically lined up each sample in order from where it was originally on the shroud. The problem, as I see it, is that the distribution of the samples won't ever get them to the 1st century.

My guess is that it's been discussed here but I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to find anything in this thread.

Thanks

Thanks
Click to expand...
Start with 'Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud' (http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf) and 'Invisible Mending and the Turin Shroud' (http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf), and then read 'Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin' (http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf), and 'A Robust Statistical Analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud Carbon Dating Results' (http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/RianiWeb.pdf). That should be enough to explain the position of the authenticists. Most of their observations are valid and I found their conclusions compelling until they bumped up against the sheer quantity of interpolated material necessary to skew the dates from 1st to 14th century. I do not believe that a close scrutiny of the edges of the alleged interwoven threads would not reveal the places where the new threads merged with the old, or at least some observable microscopic difference between the two. To try it for yourself, have a look at http://www.shroud.com/late12.htm#ariz.

I hope that helps!
 
IanS said:
Nah, it's a tablecloth. ...If you look very carefully in the corner you can still make out the faint remains of a makers lable with washing instructions.
Click to expand...

You realise some Shroudies actually posit the TS was the tablecloth at the Last Supper.
 
Blood/Bodily Contact

hughfarey said:
Chromatography is a process whereby different fractions of a liquid spread out by different amounts on a substrate. Children habitually place M&Ms on a piece of absorbent paper, and by dripping water on them, the constituent colours spread out, giving, say, rings of blue and yellow when the original M&M was green. Many liquids behave in a similar way, without needing extra solute to separate them, as they are runny anyway, although they dry before distinct rings are formed. In this case they tend to stay roughly the same colour, with a distinct 'halo' of one of their constituents around them. I'm speculating that a drop of blood on a piece of cloth, be it dripped onto cloth directly from a wound, absorbed into a covering of cloth over a wound, or dripped by a forger from a pipette, might have been assumed by Barbet to have demonstrated a similar process. However, he did not actually experiment to find out if this assumption was true.
When one applies a dressing to an excoriation, which appears to have happened here [Caution, not for the squeamish] (http://homelineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Homeline-Enluxtra-use-6.jpg) a large amount of yellowish serum has been absorbed by the cloth, and associated with it a reddish liquid which may consist of haemolytic products, and in the middle and indistinct mass of old blood cells and clotting material. Although the scourge wounds are considerably smaller, this is the sort of stain they ought to have produced. There is no evidence for that sort of stain on the shroud. In particular, I think that if the dressing was observed under UV light, it would glow very brightly, with minor extinction towards the middle. It would not show a distinct dark image of the wound with an almost indistinguishable greeny-blue glow round the edges.
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- I'm not sure which of my responses you're responding to. But if I understand you correctly, my response to your response above is that the dressing above was applied to a fresh wound, but that the shroud was not applied to fresh wounds. Wouldn’t -- or, couldn’t -- that account for the difference?
--- Jabba
 
pakeha said:
You realise some Shroudies actually posit the TS was the tablecloth at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...


No I didn't know that. But it makes sense, right? Because if Jesus was sloshed and slumped forward headfirst into the remains of his dinner and spilling the wine all over the place, getting it all on his head etc., then that explains it all nicely

Yeah, its a tablecloth. Case solved.
 
IanS said:
No I didn't know that. But it makes sense, right? Because if Jesus was sloshed and slumped forward headfirst into the remains of his dinner and spilling the wine all over the place, getting it all on his head etc., then that explains it all nicely

Yeah, its a tablecloth. Case solved.
Click to expand...

There's biblical authority for this:


King James Bible
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber,
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
In a nutshell, the carbon dating was done with material from the main cloth. They were aware of the patching and were careful to date the cloth, not the patches.

What you get from TV shows is not to be taken seriously. There is no evidence of any patches being tested. None. Give it up folks. Show's over. Nothing to see.
Click to expand...

This is great information but it's just words on a screen. Do you have any links or evidence that they knew they were not cutting from a patch? And do you have a link to, or a diagram of, exactly where the tested samples came from (not the entire piece they removed but each tested sample from that piece)?

For the record, I believe the shroud is a 14th century hoax but the program presented something I'd never seen before and I want to counter their 'facts' with real facts.

Again, the compelling part was when they dated each sample cut from the piece of cloth they removed, and they showed how they line up from oldest to newest.

I've never seen a diagram of where each tested sample came from. I know from where the cloth was cut but not where each tested sample was from within the cloth.

If the dates indeed do line up chronologically I'd like to understand why because the explanation given on the program just doesn't cut it with me.
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
Welcome to the forum, GT/CS!
Difficult?
Not really.
There's a 'search this thread' function that makes finding anything on this thread easy.

Which TV show was it you saw?
This one?
Click to expand...

I hereby challenge you to find what I'm looking for in this thread using the search function.

Youtube is blocked at work so I won't be able to look at your link until this evening
 
hughfarey said:
Start with 'Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud' (http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf) and 'Invisible Mending and the Turin Shroud' (http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf), and then read 'Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin' (http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf), and 'A Robust Statistical Analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud Carbon Dating Results' (http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/RianiWeb.pdf). That should be enough to explain the position of the authenticists. Most of their observations are valid and I found their conclusions compelling until they bumped up against the sheer quantity of interpolated material necessary to skew the dates from 1st to 14th century. I do not believe that a close scrutiny of the edges of the alleged interwoven threads would not reveal the places where the new threads merged with the old, or at least some observable microscopic difference between the two. To try it for yourself, have a look at http://www.shroud.com/late12.htm#ariz.

I hope that helps!
Click to expand...

And that is why one should never rely up on observation of any supernatural proponent as primary source. One should first read the scientific relevant observation IMHO. Supernatural proponent cherry pick, ignore the elephant in room, tergiverse, and do many other shenanigan.

The bottom line is :
1) radiocarbon tests put it in the 13th/14th century.
1) there is no evidence of invisible mending
2) contamination would need to have an ungodly amount of modern carbon and there is no known mechanism for this

Checkmate.

And all the while authenticity folk yap over utterly irrelevant detail , like pollen, bluuuuurd, and whatever black holes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom