| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 05:19:48 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Holy Shroud |
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
You are kidding, right?
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
<<Prof. Harry Gove,which made the Holy Shroud date back to the
middle-ages in 1988 by the method 14C, already in 1995, in the light
on the latest scientific knowledge, realised that the dating was wrong
..
<<The Mystery of the Holy Shroud print,which couldn't be made by men at
all, must be correlated to the Mystery of the Resurrection of
Jesus,Who was wrapped in the Holy Shroud after being buried and rose
from the death in the Holy Shroud.
The Faith we feel in our heart needn't any confirmation, but Turin's
Holy Shroud becomes an unequivocal one, beyond our will.
The end of my Flashes contains a twelve/thirteen lined brief
synthesis of my life.>>
Web site:
www.lorenzocrescini.it/holyshroud
personal e-mail for communications
ricerca...@lorenzocrescini.it
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
08 Apr 2005 01:27:30 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050408001751.18282A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find
messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
You are kidding, right?
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
The shroud was proven a fake in the mid 80s. End of story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
09 Apr 2005 12:49:44 AM |
|
|
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find
messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050408001751.18282A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
You are kidding, right?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Peacenik wrote:
The shroud was proven a fake in the mid 80s. End of story.
Absolutely.
Thanks to Walter McCrone (and a couple of English fellows, whose names
escape me right now, but their book is upstairs)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mushinronsha" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
09 Apr 2005 11:03:13 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find
messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050408001751.18282A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
You are kidding, right?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Peacenik wrote:
The shroud was proven a fake in the mid 80s. End of story.
Absolutely.
Thanks to Walter McCrone (and a couple of English fellows, whose names
escape me right now, but their book is upstairs)
One of the creationists at work claims the proof from the 80's is faulty,
because what they tested was a repair patch applied relatively recently. He
said the original has not been tested. Not knowing anything about it, I can't
really engage him on the truthfulness of his assertion.
Mushy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
11 Apr 2005 03:47:31 AM |
|
|
Mushinronsha wrote:
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find
messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050408001751.18282A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
You are kidding, right?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Peacenik wrote:
The shroud was proven a fake in the mid 80s. End of story.
Absolutely.
Thanks to Walter McCrone (and a couple of English fellows, whose names
escape me right now, but their book is upstairs)
One of the creationists at work claims the proof from the 80's is
faulty, because what they tested was a repair patch applied relatively
recently. He said the original has not been tested. Not knowing
anything about it, I can't really engage him on the truthfulness of his
assertion.
Extremely untruthful. I don't remember how many samples were taken, but
I remember that it was more than two, cuz a few different teams tested
it, and the test samples all came from different locations. The idea was
to check each team's results against each other. ALL the results
indicated the same century it was 'rediscovered', and put the shroud at
less than half the age it was supposed to be.
A simple google search can probably yield more detailed information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
11 Apr 2005 06:11:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:47:31 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@ispwest.com>
wrote:
Extremely untruthful. I don't remember how many samples were taken, but
I remember that it was more than two, cuz a few different teams tested
it, and the test samples all came from different locations.
No, they did not.
A single test sample was taken. This was then divided into four pieces
of roughly equal size. Each of these was weighed, sealed and sent to a
different lab for testing.
The idea was
to check each team's results against each other. ALL the results
indicated the same century it was 'rediscovered', and put the shroud at
less than half the age it was supposed to be.
There was actually some disagreement regarding the age of the shroud
according to those tests. There were some very dodgy looking results.
It's difficult technology, better suited to some samples than others.
The idea that the tests carried out in the 80s were flawed seems to me
to have some basis in fact. Part of the shroud was obviously attached
later than the original, and it seems conceivable that the single test
strip was taken from here.
More recent tests have suggested that the shroud is well over 2,000
years old. There is other evidence (pollen studies, chemical analysis
etc.) which seems to back this claim up. That evidence was around in
the 80s, but was largely ignored in favour of the C14 dating.
Whatever the origins of the shroud, it is apparently too old to be the
one they wrapped the Jesus bloke in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Holy Shroud |
13 Apr 2005 03:23:57 AM |
|
|
Mephisto wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:47:31 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@ispwest.com>
wrote:
Extremely untruthful. I don't remember how many samples were taken, but
I remember that it was more than two, cuz a few different teams tested
it, and the test samples all came from different locations.
No, they did not.
A single test sample was taken. This was then divided into four pieces
of roughly equal size. Each of these was weighed, sealed and sent to a
different lab for testing.
I suppose I'll take yer word for it.
The idea was
to check each team's results against each other. ALL the results
indicated the same century it was 'rediscovered', and put the shroud at
less than half the age it was supposed to be.
There was actually some disagreement regarding the age of the shroud
according to those tests. There were some very dodgy looking results.
1260 to 1380. That's not dodgy at all.
It's difficult technology, better suited to some samples than others.
The idea that the tests carried out in the 80s were flawed seems to me
to have some basis in fact. Part of the shroud was obviously attached
later than the original, and it seems conceivable that the single test
strip was taken from here.
More recent tests have suggested that the shroud is well over 2,000
years old. There is other evidence (pollen studies, chemical analysis
etc.) which seems to back this claim up. That evidence was around in
the 80s, but was largely ignored in favour of the C14 dating.
No, from what I've seen on the net, tests have been PROPOSED to confirm
that theory.
The fact is that in order to skew the results far enough for it to be a
first century cloth that has been incorrectly dated, the newer carbon
material would have to outweigh the original material by three to one.
And the assertion that the sample came from a patch is based on the
study of TWO THREADS that were supposedly mysteriously saved from a
sample that should have been entirely destroyed by the carbon dating
process.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: QQQ]]dsasadds |
09 Apr 2005 11:15:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:03:13 -0400, Mushinronsha
<mushinronsha_no_spam@bigmailbox.com> wrote:
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
gacrux Apr 6, 9:03 pm (gacrux) - Find
messages by this
Date: 6 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 9:03 pm
Subject: The Holy Shroud
-----------
<<Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's HOLY
SHROUD.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1050408001751.18282A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
You are kidding, right?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Peacenik wrote:
The shroud was proven a fake in the mid 80s. End of story.
Absolutely.
Thanks to Walter McCrone (and a couple of English fellows, whose names
escape me right now, but their book is upstairs)
One of the creationists at work claims the proof from the 80's is faulty,
because what they tested was a repair patch applied relatively recently. He
said the original has not been tested. Not knowing anything about it, I can't
really engage him on the truthfulness of his assertion.
Mushy
find someone who will allow you to smear catsup, mustard, or make up
on their entire face. press a thin cloth on their face gently rubbing
the cloth to get the substrate to adhere to it.
Remove the cloth.
Does it resemble the shroud of Turin? No. The individual who is
deplicted in the shroud had a head that only measured about 1" form
the back of its head to the front.
Anormal head is 8 to 10 inches.
Case closed
QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: QQQ]]dsasadds |
10 Apr 2005 06:22:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Eris wrote:
Thanks to Walter McCrone (and a couple of English fellows, whose names
escape me right now, but their book is upstairs)
One of the creationists at work claims the proof from the 80's is faulty,
because what they tested was a repair patch applied relatively recently. He
said the original has not been tested. Not knowing anything about it, I can't
really engage him on the truthfulness of his assertion.
Mushy
find someone who will allow you to smear catsup, mustard, or make up
on their entire face. press a thin cloth on their face gently rubbing
the cloth to get the substrate to adhere to it. Remove the cloth.
Does it resemble the shroud of Turin? No. The individual who is
deplicted in the shroud had a head that only measured about 1" form
the back of its head to the front.
Anormal head is 8 to 10 inches.
Is that why we see the front and back depicted in separate photos? I
searched for a photo of both sides together, but couldn't find it.
Guess I must be getting out those books really soon. Photos might be
contained therein, plus speculation as to why there is no distance between
front of head and back of head.
Case closed
QED
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: QQQ]]dsasadds |
12 Apr 2005 05:49:15 AM |
|
|
Ms. Smith said:
"Is that why we see the front and back depicted in separate photos? I
searched for a photo of both sides together, but couldn't find it. "
Here is such a picture.
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/shroud_turin_bishops.jpg
You will note that there is not enough distance between the
front image and the back image for the cloth to have been wrapped from
front to back, unless the cloth was wrapped over a body which was
squashed to about 4 inches thick.
Why don't we hear more about this little discussed detail?
LR
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
