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

[Teallaura]

Stop that.

[robrecht]

That's uncalled for, CS. Just because you see something to comment on doesn't mean someone else necessarily will. If Rob said he watched it, he watched it - you should be grateful since it is VERY long and only someone like me with an interest is going to put that kind of time in normally.

Now, how about giving us a quick synopsis of what is so danged important from it?

I think he missed or misunderstood my use of the serial comma, also known as the Oxford or Harvard comma. In other words, he understood me as supposedly saying that the video did not have anything meaningful to add (despite the fact that I said it was interesting) instead of my saying that I did not have anything meaningful to add (in response to his implicit complaint that on one had commented). One could argue that my comment was technically ambiguous, and that his interpretation of my comment was not impossible from a purely grammatical perspective. From a linguistic perspective, however, it cannot be a meaningful interpretation of my comment given the actual content of his question and my response. Help me, I'm stuck in an exegetical vortex!

[Teallaura]

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.

That's uncalled for, CS. Just because you see something to comment on doesn't mean someone else necessarily will. If Rob said he watched it, he watched it - you should be grateful since it is VERY long and only someone like me with an interest is going to put that kind of time in normally.

Now, how about giving us a quick synopsis of what is so danged important from it?

[robrecht]

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?

[Juvenal]

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?

[Country Sparrow]

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[robrecht]

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.

[Country Sparrow]

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

[Teallaura]

....



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.

[Teallaura]

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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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?

[Teallaura]

Your claim is hearsay, not admissible.

Then neither is McCrone's testing - chain of evidence is in question and that makes the results inadmissible.

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.