The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
The only means we have at disposal to solve the riddle is that of
recognizing that, without any doubt, in such Holy Linen happened
something that we cannot and never we’ll be capable to explain : the
Resurrection of Christ.

Website  :    http://digilander.libero.it/antoniobragadin/mystery.htm
Email     :     ricercapap.bra@alice.it

On 10 May, 06:23, abra.rice...@libero.it wrote:
> The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
> recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
> laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
> manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
> The only means we have at disposal to solve the riddle is that of
> recognizing that, without any doubt, in such Holy Linen happened
> something that we cannot and never we’ll be capable to explain : the
> Resurrection of Christ.
>
> Website  :    http://digilander.libero.it/antoniobragadin/mystery.htm
> Email     :     ricercapap....@alice.it


Say, for the sake of argument,  the shroud was shown to date back to
the time of the reported crucifixion.  Why would that be significant?

Dave

On May 10, 11:42 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
>antoniobragadin/mystery.htm
> > Email     :     ricercapap....@alice.it
>
> Say, for the sake of argument,  the shroud was shown to date back to
> the time of the reported crucifixion.  Why would that be significant?
>
It'd probably be a blow to the pride of several thousands of
generations of beetle.

wrote

>The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
>recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
>laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
>manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.

And yet you can't name them or him?

Seems you like to peddle this dubious tale in humanist groups. It's still 
wrong. However much you wish it to be, it isn't old enough to be genuine.

Steve M

X-No-Archive: yes


"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:0sKdnfVPmp__jbvVnZ2dnUVZ8szinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
>  wrote
>
>>The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
>>recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
>>laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
>>manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
>
> And yet you can't name them or him?
>
> Seems you like to peddle this dubious tale in humanist groups. It's still 
> wrong. However much you wish it to be, it isn't old enough to be genuine.


One manner that 'religious devouts' use when debating the (often dubious) 
evidence for god/jesus is to question the dating methods....
It happens with fossils, with archealogical finds and other artefacts.
Often, the questioning is made without much understanding of the many tried 
and tested methods of dating available to scientists.  C14 is but one, 
albeit an important one.
There is often much mischief cast around trying to disprove scientific 
dating and one enters into the realms of almost fantasy and intricate deceit 
when considering the arguments against scientific dating.
In this instance, I have heard said that the corner of the shroud would not 
be representative of the whole (!) due to a number of factors.  It will 
continue - 'would'  if it were allowed - until no remaining shroud is left 
(..that might not be a bad idea actually...!) when other types of 
questioning of the dating methods would be made.
It's laughable really.  My suspicion is that genuine scientists are not 
questioning this data - in spite of what is being released to the media - 
rather some quasi religious organisation that just WANTS this to be 
significant in terms of  religious evidence.   As you rightly point out, 
even if  the material could be dated to this period in time (....which is 
highly unlikely anyway given previous testing)  it shows nothing that 
supports the religious claims......



Mark

"mark"  wrote
> It's laughable really.  My suspicion is that genuine scientists are not 
> questioning this data - in spite of what is being released to the media - 
> rather some quasi religious organisation that just WANTS this to be 
> significant in terms of  religious evidence.   As you rightly point out, 
> even if  the material could be dated to this period in time (....which is 
> highly unlikely anyway given previous testing)  it shows nothing that 
> supports the religious claims......

I came across an email address for someone doing a talk about the Oxford 
University involvement and so sent a message off asking her about the areas 
selected for testing and about possible contamination etc. She assured me 
that the samples were very carefully selected from appropriate areas and 
that the samples were cleaned to remove any contaminants. I don't think they 
had any doubts over the accuracy of their tests.

Steve M