Ward,
- I'm having trouble including posts (in the usual way) from the previous section of this thread, so I'll just copy them directly...
#5222 (Jabba)
- Previously, I had figured that a patch of invisible French re-weaving was probably the cause of what I figured to be an age discrepancy in the carbon dating. I never really attached any specific probability to that position.
- Currently,
1) I am 99% convinced that even if there is "invisible reweave" (the "invisible patching" I've been referring to) involved in the patching, it uses only undamaged threads from the greater cloth, and would therefore not affect the dating...
2) I'm about 80% convinced, however, that the sample being dated did include a patch or patching that is not visible to the naked eye, but that is "visible" (observable) through a sufficiently powerful microscope or through chemical testing. 3) For a patch or patching to account for a discrepancy of more than 1000 years would require a patch of "considerable" size -- but so far, I still think that's a possibility. I mostly think it's possible because no one (that I know of) has claimed to do the specific testing that would reveal what Rogers and others have claimed to reveal. (Though, I'd be hard-pressed to estimate a probability for this possibility...)
- As I have time, I'll track down and quote the other papers (that I refer to above) that indicate patching of some sort.
#5255 (Ward)
Jabba,
It seems to me that your position regarding a patch has changed very little. Please correct this timeline in case I have it wrong.
You came here believing that some sort of patch was the most likely reason for the carbon 14 dates, but you did not know how such a patch was possible.
Further research suggested that a French weaving technique might have achieved the invisibility necessary.
But even further research suggested that the French weaving technique used threads from other parts of the shroud. So you reject French weaving.
That brings us back to your initial position that there was a patch, but you don't know how it got there.
It seems like you've progressed, but progressed in a circle right back to your initial point.
Once again, am I missing something important?
And remember the quote that intriged you some 40 pages ago about any invisible patch: "It's invisible in the way that cellophane tape is invisible, not in the way that god is invisible."
I can't believe that I'm quoting myself.
#5265 (Jabba)
Originally Posted by wardencliffe (#5255)
(You came here believing that some sort of patch was the most likely reason for the carbon 14 dates, but you did not know how such a patch was possible.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(Further research suggested that a French weaving technique might have achieved the invisibility necessary.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(But even further research suggested that the French weaving technique used threads from other parts of the shroud. So you reject French weaving.)
- Yes.
Quote:
(That brings us back to your initial position that there was a patch, but you don't know how it got there.)
- I think that there was something done, somewhere back in time, to that particular area of the Shroud that was not done to the greater Shroud.
#2305 (Ward)
I can wait. Waiting has not harmed me so far, only aged me.
-- Me now:
- So anyway, I seem to have something of a retort here -- I did decide that invisible re-weave was impossible -- but, I did let you know that I still considered that near-invisible re-weave was possible.
