Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ho-T3SQuw
    A laptop, a Barbie, and two joined paper towels drawn on with a sharpie.

    Yep, thar be proof alright. ( I stopped watching when this guy folded the paper towel over the Barbie face to make his point.)
    As a point of actual history, the cloth that would have covered Jesus face was called an the Shroud of Oviedo


    And now this: If you have 88 minutes it is well worth your time.


    sigpic
    "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
    Marcus Aurelius



    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Two problems with them - first is that the chain of evidence is questionable - if they were subsequently contaminated there would be no way to know.
      First you have no knowledge that I know of what the chain of custody was handled. As far as I am concerned as I followed the original story the samples were requested and taken and handled between two scientists. Are you privy to knowledge that the samples were not properly handled that is not public knowledge.

      But the bigger issue is that McCrone didn't do his homework - OF COURSE there's some residue of paint on the shroud - for centuries copies were made to be displayed elsewhere and they were touched to the original in a sort of sanctification (they weren't fakes but reproductions for display purposes). Those were indeed painted and transfer is inevitable. The DNA in the bloodstains, ye who didn't read the link, proves there are indeed blood stains on the shroud - a LOT of them, actually.
      As in other types of thes materials blood was used with pigments as found in the shroud.

      McCrone is the chief skeptic. He has also been thoroughly refuted.
      Where please site.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-11-2014, 04:37 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        First you have no knowledge that I know of what the chain of custody was handled. As far as I am concerned as I followed the original story the samples were requested and taken and handled between two scientists. Are you privy to knowledge that the samples were not properly handled that is not public knowledge.
        I did not say that - I said the chain of evidence was in question, not that it was proven corrupt. In question is sufficient - McCrone wasn't one of the actual researchers and didn't examine all the samples. The contamination was a known factor BEFORE the exam - which means McCrone didn't do his homework, as previously stated.



        Originally posted by Shuny
        As in other types of thes materials blood was used with pigments as found in the shroud.
        Not human blood, no it wasn't. Heck, I don't know of any citations of animal blood used in pigmentation (blood stains, it won't paint well) or of animal DNA found in the blood stains. A medieval forger - or a 1st Century forger - would be incredibly unlikely to use human blood. The law frowns on most ways of obtaining it and why bother when the slaughter house is just down the street?


        Originally posted by shuny
        Where please site.
        Already done - here you go again:

        Debunking the article you cited: http://shroud.com/bar.htm#shanks

        And you can just find it yourself because there are too many papers on too many topics to cite here so pick a paper: http://shroud.com/papers.htm
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          I did not say that - I said the chain of evidence was in question, not that it was proven corrupt. In question is sufficient - McCrone wasn't one of the actual researchers and didn't examine all the samples. The contamination was a known factor BEFORE the exam - which means McCrone didn't do his homework, as previously stated.
          Your claim is hearsay, not admissible.

          Not human blood, no it wasn't. Heck, I don't know of any citations of animal blood used in pigmentation (blood stains, it won't paint well) or of animal DNA found in the blood stains. A medieval forger - or a 1st Century forger - would be incredibly unlikely to use human blood. The law frowns on most ways of obtaining it and why bother when the slaughter house is just down the street?
          speculation. It was common for people to actually crucified in the manner of Christ, plenty of human blood was available from many sources.

          Already done - here you go again:

          Debunking the article you cited: http://shroud.com/bar.htm#shanks

          And you can just find it yourself because there are too many papers on too many topics to cite here so pick a paper: http://shroud.com/papers.htm
          This is a disagreement not debunk.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Your claim is hearsay, not admissible.
            Then neither is McCrone's testing - chain of evidence is in question and that makes the results inadmissible.



            Originally posted by shuny
            speculation. It was common for people to actually crucified in the manner of Christ, plenty of human blood was available from many sources.
            Not speculation - blood doesn't stay liquid that long (I do venipunctures and serum exams for a living), dead bodies are terrible sources of blood (it coagulates quickly - it's supposed to), and there's no evidence that the Romans would have let someone bleed their victims (or any subsequent rulers, for that matter) making getting human blood difficult. Since human blood is indistinguishable from animal blood up until the 19th century, the use of human blood would have been unnecessary to the purpose of the hypothetical forger.

            Now go read the links and quit stalling.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              The DNA in the bloodstains, ye who didn't read the link, proves there are indeed blood stains on the shroud - a LOT of them, actually.
              Just a quick note, here: the presence of human DNA on fibers from the shroud does not prove that those fibers came in contact with blood. Skin cells and hair cells, in particular, could very well have been the source for such DNA-- perhaps from previous handlers, inspectors, or venerators.

              What evidence is there that this DNA originated from blood rather than some other source?
              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                Just a quick note, here: the presence of human DNA on fibers from the shroud does not prove that those fibers came in contact with blood. Skin cells and hair cells, in particular, could very well have been the source for such DNA-- perhaps from previous handlers, inspectors, or venerators.

                What evidence is there that this DNA originated from blood rather than some other source?
                http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse2.pdf

                http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf
                Last edited by Teallaura; 10-14-2014, 09:30 AM.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  ....



                  This is a disagreement not debunk.
                  Quit back editing after a reply.

                  It's a debunk. You just don't want to admit you were wrong.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I wonder how many here watched the 80 minute video I posted, since no one is saying a word about its content.

                    sigpic
                    "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
                    Marcus Aurelius



                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                      I wonder how many here watched the 80 minute video I posted, since no one is saying a word about its content.
                      I watched it, thought it was pretty interesting, but didn't have anything meaningful to add.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                        I wonder how many here watched the 80 minute video I posted, since no one is saying a word about its content.
                        I can't do a lot of videos - and you can forget anything that long. I'd be glad to watch it at some later, better connected, date.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                          I wonder how many here watched the 80 minute video I posted, since no one is saying a word about its content.
                          Not many people are going to watch a freaking 80 minute video. This is a discussion forum, not a movie theater.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I watched it, thought it was pretty interesting, but didn't have anything meaningful to add.
                            Ah, then you didn't watch it. If you think there wasn't anything meaningful to add given the course of this thread discussion you're delusional.

                            sigpic
                            "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
                            Marcus Aurelius



                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                              Ah, then you didn't watch it. If you think there wasn't anything meaningful to add given the course of this thread discussion you're delusional.
                              I've seen it, and agree with robrecht. What do you think was meaningful about it?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Country Sparrow View Post
                                Ah, then you didn't watch it. If you think there wasn't anything meaningful to add given the course of this thread discussion you're delusional.
                                Seriously? Delusional? What particular point is it that you wanted me to make for you in this discussion?
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 08-11-2021, 08:14 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X