Well His 3D image anyway.
Is that Him? I will look for Him in the future to see if it was.
UPDATE:
Zilch commented: >> That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.
You are only giving half the story. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt to the facts that you may not have heard, but the Shroud is the real deal.
What you claim was the headlines all over the world but something was discovered and the original scientists agree with the finding that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
From another study it says:
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
So please tell the whole story and do not propagate a story half told. This stands as another reason not to trust the science publishing of men. When found to be incorrect, the damage has already been done. The recanting is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal.
Oh noes! Not the Shroud of Turin again. That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDelete>> That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.
Now that is not true at all dude! You are only giving half the story. I will give you the benefit of doubt to the facts that you may not have heard but the Shroud is the real deal.
What you claim was the headlines all over the world but something was discovered and the original scientists agree with the finding that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
From another study it says:
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and
using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
John Brown also wrote before he passed away: “the cotton fibers found by previous investigators are evident during examination of [Raes] thread R14 in a stereomicroscope at 100x magnification”
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
So please tell the whole story and do not propagate a story half told. This stands as another reason not to trust the science publishing of men. When found to be incorrect, the damage has already been done. The recanting is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal.
Dan, you do realize that nowhere in any bible version does it say that there was anything special about the supposed shroud that jesus was wrapped in? If there was a "picture" left behind from the supposed energy of his "resurrection" one would think that it'd have been mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThat last link of yours Dan, they admit that the shroud is from about 200 AD. Isn't that a little old for your purposes?
ReplyDeleteBesides, others have looked at that shroud and have come up with different conclusions than that reached by Rogers in his Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin article in Thermochimica
Acta, Vol. 425, Issues 1-2, 20 Jan. 2005, pp.189-194..
(About the most recent work quoted in the article you link)
Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific, despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. He published the photographic and chemical evidence in his papers and book. I have microscopically observed these pigments myself on Shroud fibers and can attest to this fact (see below).
The Shroud Re-Created by Linen Bleaching
ReplyDeleteI have received word that the Shroud has been re-created by a method compatible with early 14th century technology and artistic method, just as Walter McCrone, Joe Nickell, and I have maintained since the early 1980s. This re-creation will be published in the March, 2005, Books and Culture magazine. The details of the re-creation can be learned by visiting the ShadowShroud website at http://www.shadowshroud.com.
Bottom line, in the end, zilch was right.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDelete>> Dan, you do realize that nowhere in any bible version does it say that there was anything special about the supposed shroud that jesus was wrapped in? If there was a "picture" left behind from the supposed energy of his "resurrection" one would think that it'd have been mentioned.
No I didn't realize that, and very interesting point. What that actually means is for thought though. Thanks for that one.
And if it is a fake then so be it. It will be just another failed attempt to convince people that God exists through evidence of mankind's construct. Hasn't anyone learned yet that you cannot lie to make soundly saved Christians? Isn't that right Ted Haggard? Anyway, valid point about the Shroud and the lack of mention of the miracle in the Bible, I would think that it would of been worth mentioning in the Holy Book. There I go again using my intellect trying to find truth about God. We will all know the truth about it very soon. That does not mean that my faith in God has changed. My faith in the shroud? Maybe a little.
@Dan
ReplyDelete"Hasn't anyone learned yet that you cannot lie to make soundly saved Christians?"
My complaint about Creation Science and Intelligent Design. People will claim that they are trying to "sneak religion into the classroom", but they do not think it through. That would mean Christians, who believe in a holy, just, righteous God who hates sin would approve of their "end justifies the means" attitude. Absurd.