RE: Shroud of Turin more legit after research?
April 9, 2018 at 1:50 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm by orthodox-man.)
For all of you who still don't believe, beast your eyes on this:
A lad on reddit has enlightened me
"I understand that most of you will be quick to point out that the C-14 tests conducted on the Shroud placed it around the 14th Century. Here are academic papers explaining why those tests are invalid, and that the Shroud is in fact much older http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF (the paper above is the most important) http://shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com...-fanti.pdf http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf
"It can't be Christ's burial cloth - the Bible claims He was wrapped in 2 separate pieces" Please read the following: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...blood.html http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_E...icance.htm
"I read somewhere that the image on the shroud is completely wrong from an anatomical perspective" Nope http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marineli.pdf
"It's a scorch mark" Nope http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com...per-en.pdf
"It contains red ochre, a pigment used for making red dye. Therefore, fake" Nope The following papers dealt with this issue 6. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744. 7. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Check out the following too: http://shroudstory.com/fact-check/
"No human blood was found on the shroud" False http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse1.pdf
"Why is the blood on the shroud bright red, and not dark, as would be expected of ancient blood?" http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf
"Well... it's just an old burial cloth, there's nothing particularly fascinating or mysterious about it!" http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf (nuclear imaging on the shroud) http://shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2012...6_ENEA.pdf http://www.realscience.us/2011/12/23/sci...snt-faked/ http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...ional.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...79512.html
From the above, we can deduce without dispute that: - The image on the shroud contains 3d and holographic information. - The image on the shroud has soft xray emissions of some kind on the hands and parts of the skull. - The image DOES NOT date back to the 13th century - No forger, medieval or ancient, could have gone to such incredible lengths to make such a relic http://shroud2000.com/Introduction.html
*Please read the links before jumping to conclusions * "I can't be bothered reading any of the links. Instead, I'll comment on another video of Bill O'Reilly being retarded and attributing his God of the Gaps mentality to 'intellectual laziness' and await the slew of upvotes" The information is there. Whether or not you choose to expose yourself to it is up to you, but ignoring it does not make it untrue
(For a bibliography of Shroud of Turin Research Project published peer-reviewed papers: http://shroud.com/78papers.htm )
Travertine aragonite was found on the shroud, an element found in ancient Jerusalem tombs http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot....et-of.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin 'Joseph Kohlbeck from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute examined some dirt particles from the Shroud surface. The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone' Is this indisputable proof that the shroud itself is from Jerusalem? No. However, is it likely that a medieval forger would have added such details? Of course not."
A lad on reddit has enlightened me
"I understand that most of you will be quick to point out that the C-14 tests conducted on the Shroud placed it around the 14th Century. Here are academic papers explaining why those tests are invalid, and that the Shroud is in fact much older http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF (the paper above is the most important) http://shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com...-fanti.pdf http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/brown1.pdf
"It can't be Christ's burial cloth - the Bible claims He was wrapped in 2 separate pieces" Please read the following: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...blood.html http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_E...icance.htm
"I read somewhere that the image on the shroud is completely wrong from an anatomical perspective" Nope http://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marineli.pdf
"It's a scorch mark" Nope http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com...per-en.pdf
"It contains red ochre, a pigment used for making red dye. Therefore, fake" Nope The following papers dealt with this issue 6. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744. 7. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Check out the following too: http://shroudstory.com/fact-check/
"No human blood was found on the shroud" False http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse1.pdf
"Why is the blood on the shroud bright red, and not dark, as would be expected of ancient blood?" http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf
"Well... it's just an old burial cloth, there's nothing particularly fascinating or mysterious about it!" http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf (nuclear imaging on the shroud) http://shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2012...6_ENEA.pdf http://www.realscience.us/2011/12/23/sci...snt-faked/ http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.es/...ional.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...79512.html
From the above, we can deduce without dispute that: - The image on the shroud contains 3d and holographic information. - The image on the shroud has soft xray emissions of some kind on the hands and parts of the skull. - The image DOES NOT date back to the 13th century - No forger, medieval or ancient, could have gone to such incredible lengths to make such a relic http://shroud2000.com/Introduction.html
*Please read the links before jumping to conclusions * "I can't be bothered reading any of the links. Instead, I'll comment on another video of Bill O'Reilly being retarded and attributing his God of the Gaps mentality to 'intellectual laziness' and await the slew of upvotes" The information is there. Whether or not you choose to expose yourself to it is up to you, but ignoring it does not make it untrue
(For a bibliography of Shroud of Turin Research Project published peer-reviewed papers: http://shroud.com/78papers.htm )
Travertine aragonite was found on the shroud, an element found in ancient Jerusalem tombs http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot....et-of.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin 'Joseph Kohlbeck from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute examined some dirt particles from the Shroud surface. The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone' Is this indisputable proof that the shroud itself is from Jerusalem? No. However, is it likely that a medieval forger would have added such details? Of course not."
