Re: Radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin wrong?

From: I.E_Johansson (inger_e.xjohansson_at_telia.xcom)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:32:29 GMT

"Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.1c66f9f147bf8364989c06@news...
> In article <IBVKd.15618$d5.130812@newsb.telia.net>,
> inger_e.xjohansson@telia.xcom says...
> >
> > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:MPG.1c66c8eb1f1838ab989c02@news...
> > > In article <2eUKd.5090$7w5.872@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>,
> > > martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net says...
> > > >
> > > > So, we have to ask the question - where is the real one? Any ideas?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The real one is not a question but a challenge to prove that it is
> > > medieval or not!
> >
> > Bernardz,
> > isn't this one of the most common problems. While we might prove that
it's
> > not medieval that doesn't say more than that the cloths might be older,
> > which btw I have a slight memory having seen a dating which might
suggest.
> > That's not the same as saying that it's more the time of Christ. The
cloth
> > might be from those days but how can we possibly say that the 'picture'
is
> > even if it was/will be possible to establish that the cloth isn't
medieval?
> > Hope I am not expressing myself in a cryptic way.
>
>
> I think you have the problem here with the added problem that it is very
> hard to disprove a negative eg how do you disprove that there is no
> black forest cake on the moon!

Sorry but that's one of the thing I meant but of course I didn't express me
very well. Ok once more: Even if the shroud itself turned out to be older
than Medieval no matter if it was shown to be from the time of Christ, that
neither makes the 'photo' from same time nor does it directly imply that the
'photo' can't be medieval. Thus if the shroud could be called A and A was
shown to be medieval that doesn't say anything about the 'photo' here called
B. The impact of this would be that it's almost impossible to prove that B
is a forgery no matter that B is to be found on A. Which leads to what you
wrote that proving the combination of B on A (from a theoretical view B is a
part of A) to be non-genuine. The reasons for this are two: problems to
prove a negative conclusion as well as problems to prove when an added part
of a 'dated' artifact was added.
>
> One theory maybe that some old burial site was dug up, say in medieval
> times with its ancient prayer shawl relatively intact. Parts of it were
> fixed and a new picture placed on it.

That's general the case in areas where the plough turned up and changed the
strata-layers in the humus part of the ground. I totally agree.
>
> Another might be that some ancient picture of a person was etched on the
> shawl and it was *fixed* up in medieval times.

One of the early Madonna paintings comes to mind. Don't remember who it is
supposed to have been painted of. Anyhow up in the upper right corner there
is a piece added to a tree. That is according to the scholar we had for the
course of picture-analyses a symbol which wasn't used until 1200's.
Many cherubs are also said to have had their cloth added later on when the
Medieval Church took the stand that nude persons were sin.
The list can be as long as we want.
I totally agree with your points.
>
> In both cases C-14 tests will come up with different results depending
> on which parts are being tested.
>
That's true. What I had in mind was if there could be an additative result
due to the combination. Can that be the case? In other word could a possible
contimination occur of close or around such added part.

Inger E

>
>
>
> --
> If you give people more money, they can spend it
>
> Observations of Bernard - No 71
>
>