Shroud of Turin thread: What do you believe?
Saw it on the History Channel today and did some research. For me I'm really torn. Thought it was fake from the carbon dating saying it was from the 1300's, then was refuted by the fact there was dirt matching the same geological properties as were found in Jerusalem tombs of the time. And then in those tombs the style does not match other fabrics yet paintings as early as the 7th century depict the shroud with its pattern.
What's your two cents?
>>434909
Hey, I'm watching that right now too.
>>434920
Haha its not bad, I think they're doing a good job removing bias from religion and science
Radiometric dating is unreliable.
>>434909
>The Sudarium of Oviedo has been studied intensively with a petrographic (polarizing)
microscope. It is composed of pure flax fibers, and they show the same characteristics as the
Shroud of Turin. The technology used to prepare the linen cloth appears to be identical to that described for Roman times by Pliny the Elder (Natural History XIX, 3, 16-18).
>The evidence indicates significant age for the material. It seems to have similar defect types and populations as the Shroud of Turin. The two cloths must be roughly the same age.
>The Sudarium of Oviedo shows all of the physical and chemical properties of a very old sample of linen. The types of radiation damage observed in the crystals of its cellulose are very similar to other old linens of known age. Many small deposits of residual lignin can be observed at the growth nodes of the flax fibers. This is probably characteristic of linen samples made in Palestine during Roman times, as described by Pliny the Elder. The technology is certainly not the type used during medieval times in Europe or through the millennia in Egypt. I conclude that there is a finite probability that the Sudarium is related in time and location to the Shroud of Turin.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers9.pdf
>>434945
When it's inconvenient for you, of course.
>>434969
Plus the bloodstains on there match the ones on the shroud
>>434986
It has been proven to be unreliable a long time ago.
You're basically guessing and picking a number you like.
>>434986
Its just that therez other evidence proving this wrong, and he's just saying that the dating is possible to be incorrect and if it was there is possible proof to explain it
>>434945
>>434996
Yeah, sure
>>435088
>I-it's an unreliable source if it contradicts my world view!
Nice meme.
