Archaeology Finds A Real First Century Shroud

[Minimalist]

Real archaeologists discover an actual first century shroud in Jerusalem ( and no, it has nothing to do with goddamn jesus!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...salem.html

Even less surprising is that it shows that the Turin Shroud is nothing like what was in actual use. Of course, the Shroud Crowd will now conclude that this is fake and theirs is real but truly, nothing else could be expected of a bunch of nuts like that.

Looks as the Church was right after all. It is not authentic.

Radiocarbon tests and artefacts found in the cave prove almost beyond doubt that it was from the same time of Christ's death.

It was made with a simple two-way weave - not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1,000 years after Christ lived.

And instead of being a single sheet like the famous item in Turin, the Jerusalem shroud is made up of several sections, with a separate piece for the head.

The finder, archaeologist Shimon Gibson actually has credibility as an archaeologist. Coincidentally, he was involved as a junior member of the team which excavated the Talpiot Tomb and that later jackasses tried to hype as "Jesus' Tomb."

[fr0d0]

Thanks Min very interesting.

[Eilonnwy]

Nice. The media says it casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin, as if it hasn't been completely debunked already!

[Minimalist]

One always has to watch the way reporters write about stuff like this....however, I have little doubt that the published report by the archaeologists would be a cure for insomnia so one has to take the good with the bad.

[chatpilot]

The shroud of Turin has been exposed as a hoax years ago, it's only the bull headed Christians that insists on its authenticity despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. Nice find there Min I love reading about things like this.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, but they found a problem with every test, C/P because "belief" is far more powerful than reality. This is the same collection of fools who insist the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the fucking catholic church never claimed the shroud was real.

In short order they will announce that Gibson is wrong because this was a "special" burial (special pleading being one of their primary forms of argument!) just like all the other anomalies with the passion story.

If I have learned anything, my friend, it is that you cannot stop an asshole from being an asshole by waving a few facts in front of them.

[joeflow]

The shroud of Turin has been exposed as a hoax years ago, it's only the bull headed Christians that insists on its authenticity despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. Nice find there Min I love reading about things like this.

Not quite. I'm new here, but I'm sure everyone around here is very science and evidence based, so while I will not attempt to prove the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth that Jesus Christ was buried in, as this would be very hard, if not impossible to scientifically prove beyond a doubt, I will shed light on the claims that the Shroud has proven to be fake.

This is from an hour's worth of research, so this is something anyone can easily find.

Many claim the Shroud was debunked as a Medieval forgery, since it was radio carbon dated to that time period. The debunking of the Shroud has itself been debunked, as has been noted in a couple of peer reviewed scientific journals, mainly by the fact that the piece sampled was not representative of the entire Shroud, and was probably from a patch used during this time period. Supposedly the vanillin content dates it much earlier than this, to atleast 1300 years ago.

Here is one paper discussing this:

Link Removed

The other, more recent paper to supposedly confirm these results is "Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” by Robert Villarreal (also of Los Alamos National Laboratory). However, this paper does not seem available to the public yet. Much talk of it is here:

Link Removed

This is a paper from Chemistry Today, with similar findings:

Link Removed


And then of course, there is the issue of the weave. I think most here can agree that just because a burial shroud of a different weave was found from the same time period and area, that it hardly confirms the Shroud is a fake.

More credibility can be given to the claim that the type of weave did not exist until much later. And the articles claim that this is scientific fact, yet there is evidence to the contrary, as is discussed in great detail here:

Link Removed

Bottom line:

Don't require lengthy scientific evidence to prove something you believe is wrong, and then go around and lower the standards to prove something you think is right. It's about finding the truth, and not simply confirming your own preconceived notions.

[Minimalist]

See what I mean, C/P?

[Violet]

Please introduce yourself (as is customary) in the introductions thread

[joeflow]

Please introduce yourself (as is customary) in the introductions thread

Wow lame. I didn't realize how important jacking off on an internet forum was before I bothered posting anything of relevance. 2 posts will be my limit. This is no disrespect to atheists, just disrespect to internet moderators with a Napoleon Complex.

Here are the papers, you can look them up yourselves, since I'm not "worthy" to post links. I won't be wasting any more time on a message board that has such pathetic requirements. (But you do have really cool smilies and avatars, and thats what matters most!)

Journal: Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.

Peer-reviewed conference paper (Aug 2008), “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” Robert Villarreal (Paper and video presentation awaiting publication, see Ohio State University Shroud of Turin Conference Press Release)

Journal: Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425, Jan 2005) “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin”, Rogers, R.N.

"Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile" from Textile Horizons December 1981.