Whether it's politics. religion or histries.
The thing you gotta know iz
Everything is Show Biz.
JW:pavurcn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:19 am Fundamentalist-apologists for the inauthenticity of the Shroud might consider some recent science:
But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members of the STURP team, conclusively demonstrated that the samples used for the original radiocarbon tests were taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud, and therefore did not represent the original fabric.29 The 1988 Shroud dating tests and results have thus been completely discredited. (page 12)Taken from http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf . Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin By Richard B. Sorensen ©2007 All Rights ReservedMcCrone’s claims have been convincingly refuted in several STURP technical reports (Pellicori and Evans 1980:42; Pellicori 1980:1918; Heller and Adler 1981:91-94; Schwalbe and Rogers 1982:11-24). (page 17)
No debunking in sight. Only folks desperately clinging to mythicism. Wikipedia's article is biased toward the discredited debunking. It doesn't give all the reasons so many (including some scientists) favor authenticity.
The Scientific evidence indicates The Shroud is a 14th century forgery. If it is 14th century then it is not 1st century. There is no scientific evidence that the Shroud is 1st century. Assertians that "it can not be reproduced" and "an unknown process", while sounding funny in an ironic way, are not evidence that The Shroud is first century. The Scientific evidence for 14th century forgery, in order of strength is:
- 1) Credible, multiple, independent carbon dating to 14th century.
2) Epic failure for every standard forensic test for blood.
3) Determination that the entire image consists of paint materials.
Supporters of Shroud authenticity, like Rogers, initially denied McCrone's conclusion that the image contained paint materials but subsequently confessed that it does. After his testing McCrone had an artist recreate Shrouds which were identical to The Shroud. McCrone offered his Shrouds to STURP, or anyone else, to see if they could tell the difference, under a microscope! They declined. So The Shroud had already been replicated in the 80s. McCrone's forensic science indicated that the technique used to create the Shroud, as well as the related materials, were popular in the 14th century.
Apologists here want to posture that their faith in The Shroud is based on Science but their problem here is that the Scientific evidence, qualitatively and quantitatively, supports a 14th century forgery. The standard, straight-forward forensic results from accredited forensic scientists supports a 14th century forgery and this conclusion is generally accepted by Scientists as a whole. Supporters of authenticity have to rely on a few quasi, fringe scientists with questionable credentials whose conclusions are constantly changing. McCrone was the leading forensic scientist of his time and one of the greatest forensic scientists of all time. Rogers' main qualification is he was a Captain in the US Air Force.
By The Way, most Skeptics here, including me, think that that guy from The Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "Y" or "J" did exist. Even Neil Godfree, who Apologists seem to think is the leading Internet "Mythicist" seems to think Jesus was more likely to exist than Yassir Arafat as Godfree mentions Jesus about once every two sentences but has not mentioned the infamous Palestinian Terrorist and Godfather of all modern Terrorism, Arafat, since 2011.
Joseph
The New Porphyry