Re: Radiocarbon dating of Shroud of Turin wrong?

From: Martin Edwards (buzzard554_at_fastmail.co.uk)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:53:14 +0000 (UTC)

bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I.E_Johansson wrote:
>
>>"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
>>>
>>>
>
>
> Three separate samples were sent to different Physics laboratories. All
> three proved conclusively that the shroud was medieval.
>
> Superstitious Crusaders were sold " relics" by wily Muslim merchants.
>
> As Jesus was raised bodily into Heaven, the only relic of him was his
> foreskin removed at the time of his circumcision. It disappeared from
> an Italian monastery in Italy ca 1970.
> Presumably it rose into Heaven to be reunited with the rest of the
> heavenly body of Jesus.
>
> Bernard Connor
>
That's stretching a point a bit. 

-- 
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause.  -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955