Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not at all what was absolutely stated ever or anywhere. Some individual scientist's comments are always upgraded by you to global absolutes with the agreement of the world's top scientists. Unfortunately for you, there are those of us who can also Google.
The investigators have indeed been intrigued by these "interesting visual effects", but they have provided no absolute or final conclusions, unlike you. Please do provide a link where they don't say it just looks sort of like a 3-D picture, but where they make the absolute statement that it is. And that it is The Shroud. Hint: you won't find it.
As well, the most recent C-14 dating studies (conclusively done in 2008), which you once held to be the supreme truth (poorly done with errors in 1988) as regards The Shroud, have well-proven it to be medieval (1500 - 1700 years, not 2000), so clearly not of Christ's time frame at all.
So now you'll have to retract your statement, right?
From your endlessly stubborn posts, it seems that only you know the whole truth. All the combined honest research proving this is not The Shroud is just wrong.
Great!
Well no retraction is necessary, and that is because my belief is not based on old and antiquated information. The 3-D images have been confirmed by a NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer. The link below dismisses the belief that they just look like a 3-D Image. The link confirms, it is a 3-D image. Yet only a NASA 3-D Analyzer can show us this. No other picture found on earth allows for such an image to be displayed. This 3-D image is only found on the shroud of Turin.
Shroud of Turin - High Quality 3D Images (http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/turin_intro.htm - broken link)
As far as the shroud being from the middle ages, that belief was dismissed when it was discovered that they mistakenly tested a patch placed on the shroud during the middle ages. The actual material from the shroud has never been tested by C-14. These findings were reported on in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. Other recent discoveries have revealed that the shroud is much older then the results that came back from the C-14 test. Consider the link below.
If you are willing to only accept past research that has been revealed to be in error. Then you can believe what ever you want. Yet, if you are willing to be honest with yourself, you should be willing to accept the latest scientific findings. And those finding have nothing to do with me be stubborn.
Here again, when your link is from 2005. Your are living in the past man. It was not until 2008 that the carbon date returned was declared invalid. This was confirmed in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pp. 189-194). If your going to make claims that the shroud is a fake. You really need to do your homework. And coming here with past errors does not help your case.
I understand that you have a comprehension problem, constantly on display. But even you should be able to back up such a claim. Where did I say anything except that I believe it to be a fake? You claim that what you believe has to be true, but the same doesn't apply to any other belief?
A truly blind, moronic bigot.
If I was truly blind, I would present old data that has been exposed to be filled with errors. And then try to get other people to agree with me. If I was a moronic bigot, I would target other races, and make up lies about them. And if I was just a jerk, I would start calling other people who do not agree with me, blind moronic bigots.
Here again, when your link is from 2005. Your are living in the past man. It was not until 2008 that the carbon date returned was declared invalid. This was confirmed in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pp. 189-194). If your going to make claims that the shroud is a fake. You really need to do your homework. And coming here with past errors does not help your case.
FYI, I am not a man. All yours says is that it "confirms", say a May in there, talks about the 2005 claim which is why they have been testing, which is when mine is dated, and you didnt comment on the last three paragraphs of mine, which are not carbon 14 related. And none of this points to Jesus by the way. Oh and here is another " miracle for you"
If I was truly blind, I would present old data that has been exposed to be filled with errors. And then try to get other people to agree with me. If I was a moronic bigot, I would target other races, and make up lies about them. And if I was just a jerk, I would start calling other people who do not agree with me, blind moronic bigots.
And you have just proven all charges against you.
You do continue to present old (and false) data in trying to get people to agree with you. It is only true in your own little mind.
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "bigot". Has nothing to do with race. And you do make up lies to support your own silly position. I know that you won't look up the definition of bigot as it would prove you wrong, one again.
As for name calling, you are a jerk. I never said it, you branded yourself. More moronic behavior.
What the four books written about him isn't enough for you? Not to mention the writting of Paul and the notations in Josephus at a time when the middle east was in a dark age!
Well, what about the History books by Edith Hamilton, or Bullfinch, or Dr. Seuss, or the Biography by J.K. Rowling????
Well, what about the History books by Edith Hamilton, or Bullfinch, or Dr. Seuss, or the Biography by J.K. Rowling????
It is true that if you use books (writings) as you source of proof, you should be prepared to also read all those that disagree with your point of view. Any subject has its pros and cons and, while books can discuss a subject they tend to prove nothing to those who do not believe them.
FYI, I am not a man. All yours says is that it "confirms", say a May in there, talks about the 2005 claim which is why they have been testing, which is when mine is dated, and you didnt comment on the last three paragraphs of mine, which are not carbon 14 related. And none of this points to Jesus by the way. Oh and here is another " miracle for you"
The Italian scientist did not even come close to reproducing the shroud. And that is because his shroud did not contain either a negative print, or a 3-D image. Is it not amazing what nonsense can be passed off for proof. Especially when you are willing to leave out critical details. If this scientist had drawn a stick man, would you of considered that as proof?
I can assure you, that his image under a NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer would not of given a same result. And if they took a photograph of (his shroud) the negative would not appear as a positive print. And this is of course the kind of evidence that non believers ignore.
In his commentary in Nature, Philip Ball, stated that the image on the shroud was not painted. And it's existance was more of a chemical caramel.
And to date, no one knows how this occured. No one knows why we are looking at a negative, and no one knows how such an image could be 3-D.
Also, according to National Geographic news, PBS, and several scientific papers, the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was done with an invalid sample. This was confirmed in the peerreviewed scientific journal Thermocimica Acta.
The Italian scientist did not even come close to reproducing the shroud. And that is because his shroud did not contain either a negative print, or a 3-D image. Is it not amazing what nonsense can be passed off for proof. Especially when you are willing to leave out critical details. If this scientist had drawn a stick man, would you of considered that as proof?
I can assure you, that his image under a NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer would not of given a same result. And if they took a photograph of (his shroud) the negative would not appear as a positive print. And this is of course the kind of evidence that non believers ignore.
In his commentary in Nature, Philip Ball, stated that the image on the shroud was not painted. And it's existance was more of a chemical caramel.
And to date, no one knows how this occured. No one knows why we are looking at a negative, and no one knows how such an image could be 3-D.
Also, according to National Geographic news, PBS, and several scientific papers, the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was done with an invalid sample. This was confirmed in the peerreviewed scientific journal Thermocimica Acta.
Your a hoot, how can you assure me, are you an expert in this field, a scientist, again please comment on the last three paragraphs in the earlier link I posted. And again ,what does any of this have to show it is Jesus, other than your wishful thinking.
""The intellectually dishonest presentation even carried the unchallenged assertion that no artistic materials were found on the cloth. In fact, famed microanalyst Walter McCrone discovered that the body image (in contrast to off-image areas) had significant amounts of artist's pigment. The show repeated the false assertion that the "blood" stains were "human" blood, when in fact they failed batteries of forensic serological tests for blood"
Last edited by Nea1; 09-21-2010 at 03:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
