Shroud from the time of Jesus

[YourMaster]

Comments are the worst thing to happen to the internet

How dare we allow people to comment on things and speak freely. Then how will we keep brainwashing the sheeple with our theistic hogwash?

[Hamster]

How dare we allow people to comment on things and speak freely

I know, right.

Move over, Voltaire, it's Biscuits381 and he's here to tell you about the Zionist hate-machine in the youtube comments for a clip from Disney's Aladdin.

[Rapalyea]

KB

You have not done your homework. Instead, you seem to be an advocate. I am fully aware of the original C14 findings. However, I am also aware of subsequent developments that you seem to have missed. That would be a difficult thing to do if you had done even a bit of internet search.

So I have done some for you. There is plenty more.

1) http://shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_conference_me/
2) You tube clip http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422233...carbon_dating/

The original C14 dates were flawed. They are flawed today, yesterday and tomorrow. They are known to be flawed by anyone who has done any research. Further, they were found to be flawed not by a scientist, but by a housewife.

PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton.

According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole.

Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.

LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.

This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD.

Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.

[Rapalyea]

KB

I am not a religeous person but I DO get spooked by improbable co-incidence. Specifically,

1) Evidence for a flawed date was uncoverred by a housewife and her husband. This took place after one of the most important archaological C14 tests in all of history was conducted and presented to a planetary audience on October 13, 1988. http://shroud.wikispaces.com/CARBON.14.DATING

2) The housewife's work was confirmed by the only scientist who had both the samples and expertise to do so. He then died.

3) THAT scientist's work was subsequently confirmed by his acquaintences at Los Alamos.

If I were Geo Washington I might be inclined to attribute this close call to devine provinance. I recommend you do some thinking about the gravity of this adventure....

[KBertsche]

KB

You have not done your homework. Instead, you seem to be an advocate.

Not an advocate, but a real scientist who has experience actually doing radiocarbon dating in a leading radiocarbon lab. I've met the directors of all three labs that did the dating on the Shroud. I worked with the person who did the sample preparation for the Shroud at one of the laboratories.

I am fully aware of the original C14 findings. However, I am also aware of subsequent developments that you seem to have missed. That would be a difficult thing to do if you had done even a bit of internet search.

So I have done some for you. There is plenty more.

1) http://shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_conference_me/
2) You tube clip http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422233...carbon_dating/

Don't waste my time. I specifically did NOT ask for internet links. These are a dime a dozen. I asked for peer-reviewed publications. I'm looking for publications on the same level as the original Nature report. If you are going to effectively rebut the Nature report, you need to refer to a journal on the level of Nature or Science, not National Enquirer. If you have such a report, present it. If not, you are just blowing smoke.

The original C14 dates were flawed. They are flawed today, yesterday and tomorrow. They are known to be flawed by anyone who has done any research.

Nonsense. I've done radiocarbon dating at a leading laboratory. I don't see any flaws. Neither did my co-worker who prepared one of the samples.

Further, they were found to be flawed not by a scientist, but by a housewife.

Yeah, right. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about radiocarbon dating decides that the Shroud dates are flawed.

PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

So far as I know, LANL does not actually do radiocarbon dating. They have expertise in isotopic nuclear chemistry, but I don't believe they have radiocarbon dating expertise. They certainly have nowhere near the experience of the three labs that actually did the dating.

You are just repeating nonsense. Please do not waste our time with anything less than a peer-reviewed article from Nature or Science.

Kirk

[KBertsche]

KB

I am not a religeous person but I DO get spooked by improbable co-incidence. Specifically,

1) Evidence for a flawed date was uncoverred by a housewife and her husband. This took place after one of the most important archaological C14 tests in all of history was conducted and presented to a planetary audience on October 13, 1988. http://shroud.wikispaces.com/CARBON.14.DATING

2) The housewife's work was confirmed by the only scientist who had both the samples and expertise to do so. He then died.

3) THAT scientist's work was subsequently confirmed by his acquaintences at Los Alamos.

If I were Geo Washington I might be inclined to attribute this close call to devine provinance. I recommend you do some thinking about the gravity of this adventure....

This article is poorly written. It is on a shroud-advocacy website. It has not been peer-reviewed. It presents dates that are not in the original Nature article, with no support, and no indication of where these dates come from. I see no reason to take any of it seriously or to give it a second thought. This is not how real science is done.

[Rapalyea]

You are one very obstinate and, apparently, very insecure individual. Earlier you just bored me. Now its like playing Donky Kong.

Thermochimica Acta
Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6ee0321dd32a33

You can read the abstract free. I will not, however, pay the $39.95 to Science Direct so you can read the entire thing. Its faith based guys like you who give science a bad name.

[rogue06]

You are one very obstinate and, apparently, very insecure individual. Earlier you just bored me. Now its like playing Donky Kong.

Thermochimica Acta
Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6ee0321dd32a33

You can read the abstract free. I will not, however, pay the $39.95 to Science Direct so you can read the entire thing. Its faith based guys like you who give science a bad name.

Yeah folks who ask for credible evidence have no place in science

[Rapalyea]

rogue - You wrote: "Yeah folks who ask for credible evidence have no place in science..."

I demure. Folks who do not accept credible evidence are increasingly accepted in science. Faith based believes trump contrary evidence every time in some areas. For instance, Phil Jones of East Anglia Climate Unit recently confessed, under Papal Inquisition perhaps, the climate has not warmed in 15 years.

This was a shock to me. I am a CO2 skeptic, and I only could come up with TEN years. Where the hell does 15 years come from? No matter, the entire climate science is like a box of chocolates. You just do not know what you might get next.

And then you get Shroud C14 believers. It just does not matter how much counter evidence is developed. Once-upon-a-time they heard the shroud was midieval. Like molten lava solidifying in salt water off The Big Island, that is the end of discussion. Glug Glug.

[Rapalyea]

PS - Sunspot cycle 24 continues to be a dissapoinmtnet http://space-env.esa.int/Data_Plots/noaa/ssn_plot.gif

April 6, 2010
Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979.

But none of this matters. Climate scientific consensus was reached decades ago. The science is settled.....

[Rapalyea]

PPS

I have always said Warm is Good. Cold is Bad. The next couple of years may tell us if we are getting warmer, or colder. Either way, I ask my fellow countrymen, the UK, and Central, Middle, and Eastern Europe: Last Winter? How did you like THEM apples....

[KBertsche]

You are one very obstinate and, apparently, very insecure individual. Earlier you just bored me. Now its like playing Donky Kong.

Thermochimica Acta
Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6ee0321dd32a33

You can read the abstract free. I will not, however, pay the $39.95 to Science Direct so you can read the entire thing. Its faith based guys like you who give science a bad name.

Finally, a reference to a real scientific article! It's not quite on the level of Nature or Science, and the author of the article was a founding editor of the journal which published it, so the peer review process may be called into question. But I'll take it as a legitimate, peer-reviewed article. Let's see what it really says.

Rogers seemed to believe that the original 1988 radiocarbon dates had been done correctly, but had been done on a repaired area:

Rogers

The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud.

© source where applicable

Rogers examined a piece of the shroud which had been removed in 1973, physically near the sample removed later for radiocarbon dating. He argued, based on chemical and microscopic analysis, that this area had been repaired. This is a reasonable claim, though I would not consider it "proven."

The article provides NO support for your claims of FOUR samples or the FOUR strange radiocarbon dates that you provided in http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...33#post2962333 Do you have any scientific reports that support these claims?

[Rapalyea]

KB - You are not only obstinant, you seem a bit egotistical and full of yourself. EYE can do that. I was a Congressional Investigator [GAO] for most of my adult life. And here is the really really sweet part.

I was on the GAO team that failed to support vigoruos conversion to the metric system. And I will will tell you that each and every one of us on the team seem to have been adequately indoctrinated to believe our investigation would uncover all the Glorious Advantages of Said Sytem.

I doubt if one single staff member held that belief two weeks later. Incidentally, this was where I got my first dose of 'The Scientific Method". I was pre-testing a questionaire on the subject to be sent out by the thousands. On question was this:

How long should the US take to convert?

1) Five years.
2) Ten Years.
3) Fifteen years.
4) Never.

This was at the National Bureau of Standards. The 'sceintist' I was interviewing got all testy and spouted off, in no uncertain terms, to paraphrase: "YOU SHOULD NOT EVEN give THEM THE OPTION OF Never".

My area of study was the construction industry. You know, bricks, cement blocks, Hobart scales, paint buckets. A couple of others. Don't get me started.....Yeah, I got one to you guys very very early on....

[Rapalyea]

KB - Just give it up. The shroud C14 goes down in history right after, or just above, Piltdown Man.

[KBertsche]

KB - Just give it up. The shroud C14 goes down in history right after, or just above, Piltdown Man.

In your dreams, perhaps. You are free to believe whatever myths or urban legends you wish. But if you wish to persuade others, please provide SOLID SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT for your claims. The ONE scientific paper that you produced had no criticism of the radiocarbon dates done on the Shroud. Rogers' criticism was restricted to the sample-taking.