On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:54:53 GMT, "tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca> wrote:

"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1106767801.531177.107690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Jason Spaceman pasted:
a lot of rubbish

Its not his fault people bother investigating the Shroud.

tim gueguen 101867

What they can't seem to get into their heads, is that even if the manage to show
that it is the right age, it doesn't mean that it is genuine.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:54:09 GMT, "tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca>
wrote:

"EjP" <noname@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:ct8cch$l5g$1@info4.fnal.gov...

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed
to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is
much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to
new microchemical research.

Published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry
peer- reviewed scientific journal, the study dismisses the results of
the 1988 carbon-14 dating.

At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and
Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline
of the body of a man is indelibly impressed, was a medieval fake
dating from 1260 to 1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around the
body of Christ.

"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the
shroud in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed,
the patch was very carefully made. The yarn has the same twist as the
main part of the cloth, and it was stained to match the color,"
Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National
Laboratories and former member of the STURP team of American
scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978, told Discovery
News. ------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/shroud.html

I like the fact that the the sentence "A determination of the kinetics
of vanillin loss *suggests* the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years"
gets translated as "conclusive proof" that it's exactly 2000 years
old.

Am I the only one who thinks the burden of proof is badly skewed on
this artifact?

Is it? The technology has advanced much since 1988. In another
twenty years it will advance even more.

And of course none of this changes the annoying little fact that even if the
Shroud were to be conclusively proven to be a 1st Century CE burial cloth
there is no way of proving it was the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. It
could just as easily be the burial cloth of Isaiah of Hebron, or Marcus of
Rome, or whoever.

Exactly.

tim gueguen 101867

Danny Kodicek wrote:

"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:35p2bpF4oh1sjU1@individual.net...

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Please copy the whole story when you post these things. It's
really annoying to read something like this, *and it doesn't
even say how old they think the shroud really is*.

Copying entire stories is a breach of copyright. Jason posts enough for

to get the gist, and a link to the entire story that's just a mouse

away.

It's still fair use, done nonprofit on a forum like this.

And I don't consider a story about the alleged evidence of
great age for the shroud, that omits the age alleged, to
give the gist.

mouse-click away, on sites requiring registration to read,
giving your personal information and e-mail address.

Danny Kodicek wrote:

Copying entire stories is a breach of copyright. Jason posts enough for you
to get the gist, and a link to the entire story that's just a mouse click
away.

It's still fair use, done nonprofit on a forum like this.

And I don't consider a story about the alleged evidence of
great age for the shroud, that omits the age alleged, to
give the gist.

And again, many of these are more than a
mouse-click away, on sites requiring registration to read,
giving your personal information and e-mail address.

"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:35q7h6F4q2g4vU1@individual.net...

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

on 25 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Spaceman dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:

Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long
believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the
crucifixion, is much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon
tests, according to new microchemical research.

It's funny here, how the sheer length of time it would take to make
an imprint of a dead body on a shroud far exceeds that which the
body spent

in

the tomb, according to doctrine.

I've heard that it was some sort of holy energy flash during the
Resurrection that created the image. Uh huh.

Another problem is that the image is wrong. The cloth would have
been wrapped around the corpse, not just laid on top of it, so the
face should be more distorted.

Not to mention that the body and face are out of proportion.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:57:41 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net>
wrote:

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

on 25 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Spaceman dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:

Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed
to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is much
older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to new
microchemical research.

It's funny here, how the sheer length of time it would take to make an
imprint of a dead body on a shroud far exceeds that which the body
spent in the tomb, according to doctrine.

I've heard that it was some sort of holy energy flash during the
Resurrection that created the image. Uh huh.

Another problem is that the image is wrong. The cloth would have been
wrapped around the corpse, not just laid on top of it, so the face should
be more distorted.

When it was first discovered the local bishop wrote to the pope that he
knew who had painted it.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:57:41 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:

Vic Sagerquist wrote:

on 25 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Jason Spaceman dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:

Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed
to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is
much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to
new microchemical research.

It's funny here, how the sheer length of time it would take to make an
imprint of a dead body on a shroud far exceeds that which the body spent in
the tomb, according to doctrine.

I've heard that it was some sort of holy energy flash during the
Resurrection that created the image. Uh huh.

Another problem is that the image is wrong. The cloth would have been
wrapped around the corpse, not just laid on top of it, so the face
should be more distorted.

When it was first discovered the local bishop wrote to the pope that
he knew who had painted it.