Don’t be silly, Irishman. It means KimKatt’s going to Raleigh.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover2.html
a few years ago, when the church let scientists play with the shroud for the first time in 20 years or so, time presented a fairly objective article about it’s origin. it’s archived at the url above.
the gist is this: it’s quite possible that the shroud is jesus’, and it’s almost indisbutable that it is at least the imprint of a whipped and cruxified man (but not necesarilly anyone in particular.) that said, i read it kind of quickly so you should look at it for yuourself.
Um.
First, just some nuts and bolts:
The link didn’t make because it wants a space or a carriage return in front of the http. Just another one of those adorable little vB quirks.
The Time article cited is actually 5 pages long; the link provided is only to page 2 of the article. Here’s the first page, if anybody’s interested.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980420/cover1.html
I read the whole thing, which BTW was quite objectively written, and I didn’t come away with the impression that “it’s quite possible that the shroud is jesus’, and it’s almost indisbutable that it is at least the imprint of a whipped and cruxified man.” I came away with the impression that most reputable scientists and people who have studied the shroud believe it dates from the medieval period, and was probably manufactured in some way, rather than being the actual impression of a body.
I am back. I was watching some thing on TLC and or discovery, but any way. There is som people who thing that they scientist who did the carben dating test made on mistake that is they may of taken the sample from the corner of were it was burned of and the fixed it. and i have heard that there is not on grain of olive pollen is this true i have no read it but i have heard it from some friends.
“There are test every day if you fail you get slow then you die.”
Billy The Kid.
Billy, please put a bookmark at
and use it!
I guess you haven’t gotten the point yet that all the mispellings (even in your signature line!) make it more difficult to take your postings seriously. If you don’t want to be brushed off as just another illiterate kid, you need to post in complete, well-thought-out, grammatical sentences and not to base everything on TV shows.
Hi, Billy! Welcome back! I put the words “olive pollen Shroud” into http://www.google.com which is a really nifty search engine, and one of the hits was for this website.
It has about 75 Web links just dealing with the Shroud and pollen. Good hunting!
P.S. Just ignore Kiwibird–he hasn’t been the same ever since he fell off his high horse and got a yardstick up his rectum. Yeowch!
One thing not mentioned in the Time article is the testing process used by the AMS labs. All three labs were supplied with packets of threads from 4 different pieces of fabric – one sample from the shroud and three samples of known age (one was 1st century Egyptian, one from the middle ages, and one was relatively modern). All of the sample packets were coded, and none of the lab personnel who handled the threads during testing knew which was which.
The fungus and burn arguments are specious – the “bioplastic” coating has never been observed except by the two people who claim to have discovered it. In order to make a 2000 year old cellulose fiber look 700 years old it would require increasing the mass by 60%, assuming that the new mass was modern carbon – if the additional mass was added gradually over the life of the cloth it would require that the additional mass be several times the mass of the original fibers.
The fire argument seems to require actual replacement of carbon atoms within the cellulose molecule with modern carbon atoms, since soot deposited on the surface of the fibers would be removed in the cleaning process.
The book Turin Shroud, by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (HarperCollins, 1994) is a very absorbing, fairly well-documented argument that the Shroud was created during the early Renaissance. The really mind-blowing part is that the authors argue that the Shroud appears like a photographic negative because it /is/ a primitive photographic negative–probably produced by none other than Leonardo da Vinci, with what amounts to the world’s first “trick photography”. While I don’t quite buy all of the authors’ arguments, it’s a really fascinating thing to contemplate, and I could not find any show-stopping flaws in their case.
Here’s a thumbnail version of the Picknett theory. http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/110/shroud.html
I don’t know anything about photography, so I don’t know what kind of “light-sensitive chemicals” Da Vinci would have used, or whether it would have worked. The website doesn’t say; it’s basically just a plug for the book.
I am sorry I was not spelling my best I was wrighting the post at a fast rate. and I made some mistakes. I will amit I am not the best speller I never have been. Any way thank you Duck Duck Goose for taking up for me, and for you web site I did find some very nice articals on the shroud. But I still have one question I heard in church one time. That they naild jesus to the cross so hard that they had to pull him off the cross by riping his skin would you be able to see this on the shroud. One more thing they say it is a imprint of Jesus and, well if you take a cloth and put it over you face and you had paint on youre face wouldnt it make the imprint twice as big. I know what you are thiink that I stared this topic i said i was mad because Ciecle said it was a fake and well i have found it to be a fake now.
“There are test every day you fail you get slow the you die.”
The real Billy the Kid said this and that is how he said it.
How many “typos” and off-the-wall comments do you need before you know he’s pulling your leg?
He had one similar group going on a phony “Billy the Kid” thread with “proofs” just as obviously made up as he went along.
i am sorry i am 15 and i will belive any thing i geuss i mean i belive in the Lock Ness. And the billy the kid thing yes it was a dumb thing to to i did some more research on it and found it was a messed up thing but still i am not joking about my the shroud i belive God would but something on earth to strain even the best scientice. but if you thick i am a fake or what have not i am sorry. So please forgive me for what i have done.
Nothing like old threads.
I recently came across the two authors mentioned on page one of this thread who duplicated the shroud using chemicals that would have been available at that time. They do indeed strongly claim it was daVince who made it. I have not read that particular book (reading a different one about the Knights Templar called “The Templar Revolution” in which they mention this) but it seems, for such history buffs, to be a HUGE oversight to have missed that the shroud’s first appearence was before da Vince was alive!
Has anyone read that book? How did they squirm around that one?