This will be my last post on this section of the forum.
I had hoped some would actually look at the evidence before conclude. So we could have a discussion on evidence
But the futility of spending more time on it is demonstrated by this...
"i know them to be false" said one commenter without even looking.
Sadly the atheist belief is too strong to even look at evidence!
So in answer to the two last posts.
DrFfybes wrote:mikewarr wrote:
This was multiple events. Multiple continents. Many forensic scientists and cardiac specialists.
Buenos Airies. Tixtla . Legnica . Sokolka. Lanciano etc . Look them up.
.
No. Because I can't be bothered, because in the same way you believe them to be true, I know them to be false. Because if they were true then rather than restricted to obscure websites run by devotees it would be in all the mainstream scientific media, the front page of Nature, and all over the tabloids.
If it interests you there are many books.
Serafini “ a cardiologist examines Jesus” is probably the best review.
He understands the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups better than such as castarnon or tesoriero
And it’s true. It is only known in the catholic Eucharist.
In all cases the wafer was not consumed , so no need for food safety .
It doesn't really interest me, but I did look the book up. What was striking for a purported medical publication was that I could not find any acceptance, peer review, verification, or commendation of his work outside of the Catholic support network.
And that's why this arguement is pointless, to you this is The Truth, but to me this is just another crackpot conspiracy theory tucked away on niche websites and Whatsapp groups. If you want to believe that then fine, it is your perogative. If you believe the earth was created by Aliens or a spaghetti monster then fine, it is is your perogative.
I don't doubt Jesus existed. In fact there is much evidence he did, and it is quite likely that after the robbers of the wealthy tomb in which he was interred were scared off by discovering him recovering from his traumatic day, he went off to live happily with Mary Magdelene in Exile.
Religion is largely down to charismatic individuals convincing the masses that they are the ones with the Truth, whether it is the ancient druids, Jesus, Abraham, Buddha, Muhammad, Hubbard, Rasputin, Trump, Icke, etc.
And just as you believe your version is correct, so too do their Billions of followers.
Which means at the very least that most are wrong.
Paul
You "know them to be false" is an expression of your faith - and that illustrates the reason none of this gets traction.
You refuse to study what you do not believe a priori.
As a scientist I study it all. And consider it based on the evidence.
In comparison. You might like to know there is literally no evidence the first live cell formed from random chance chemistry. There is no structure proposed for it ( within the constraints of the definitions of life by NASA and harvard) , nor mechanism proposed for how it happened. There is no mechanism conjectured for how that developed to the simplest cells we know.
I dare say you believe that. So you are guided by belief not science.
So my comments on eucharistic miracles are based on the science.
Since it is all about detection and characterising of human blood and tissue the correct place for the analysis was criminal forensic labs who have far stricter procedures and lab practice than the typical academic lab. So that is where it was done. Analysed by forensic pathologists whose view I am sure you respect in the context of criminal convictions.
If you read a a book such as "Crónica De Un Milagro Eucarístico: Esplendor en Tixtla "... by castarnon, the back part of the book is entirely forensic reports. However to save both language problems ( some are in poland, so polish) and buying many books I suggested you bought serafini.
There is a brief precis on therealpresence.org If you do not read the evidence you have no basis to have a view.
ReformedCharacter wrote:mikewarr wrote:
Atheist bias ( and demonstrable dishonesty ) set shroud research back two decades. It still hasn’t recovered from the RC dating fraud.
By coincidence I watched a documentary about the Turin Shroud, while doing my exercise routine, a few days ago. The gist of it was that the TS had been misdated due to the inclusion of later repairs in the samples taken. After reading your earlier post I looked the subject up on Wikipedia and found quite a lot of information, including a refutation of the misdating. I found no mention of 'fraud', as in a deliberate act to deceive, regarding the dating of the TS. Please could you provide a link that describes the fraud as it must have been quite a difficult thing to achieve and I would like to know how it was perpetrated. Thanks.
RC
Alas one documentary is not enough.
There are hundreds of books and papers, of which I have many, it is impossible to cite a single reference. Only a few highlights to search
1/ STURP in 1978 determined the shroud is not an artwork or painting. It carries the pre and post mortem pathology of a crucified man with the specific tortures noted by christian documents, much of which is not visible in ordinary light. So the idea it is a medieaval fake when forensic pathology was unkonwn is for the birds. The mark is a dehydration/oxidation of cellulose on very think layer. Both intensity variation and Projection distortion indicate it is consistent with a body centric radiation, the closest you can come to is by electrostatic discharge, or heavy particle radiation, although UV laser matches.
2/ The forensic correspondence with the much older Sudarium by EDICES madrid and later others has demonstrated massive forensic correspondence so they covered the same body, and the shroud is way older than mediaeval.
So to the main point - .
3/ The RC test was incompetent, devious and fraudulent.
As raw data was finally obtained by legal process showed they literally fiddled the figures for publication!!!!
That should be a sacking offence. But they kept the lid on till they had all retired
To see the full depth of how badly behaved they were, you would need to read the correspondence between the daters in such as Jo Marinos book.
It is an eye opener to see scientists behaving as anything but.
Gove inventor of the then unproven AMS was not interested in dating the shroud
He was interested in promoting AMS to take over from market leaders like Harwell.
Like the last poster "he knew it was a fraud" with no study, he just wanted the shroud as publicity vehicle..
They did a test the year before, when AMS failed in dating old fabrics, it got one half age! Carefully swept under the carpet
The daters refused to have anyone experience from STURP , including the only archeologist Meacham on the team or anyone who considered it might be real.
So nobody who knew anything abotu the shroud was present at sample taking.
They knew nothing about it so sampled the worst possible area of it.
Worse they did the sample bottling in an ante room. Four cloths went into that room. Only three were bottled up! Their procedure was an insult to science.
Gove broke all the protocols agreed. Instead of taking three samples around the shroud, he took one and divided it into three pieces, presumably hoping for consistency.
The metrology company agreed in the protocol was never appointed. They conferred between them. No blind process was used. A dozen red flags ignored.
Then the fraud.
Yet panic of all panics, When the numbers came in from the labs to national history museum, far from being consistent they were not even statistically homogeneous.
(ie not statistically consistent enough to declare a valid test and no date could be declared)
SO THEY LITERALLY FIDDLED THE DATA!!! Enough to make it consistent!
But when the data was pubilshed in nature others began to smell a rat.
Van haelst shortly after the test noticed the data in nature there was something wrong, the nature statistics did not match the data published , so requisitioned raw data.
But For 20 years the labs refused to part with the data. Halls to the oxford data home to retirement. The refusal to release raw data, demonstrated bad faith.
Eventually a legal process for freedom of information got the raw data by casabianca which showed the data had been fiddled. Later analysis shows a big date gradient. Probaby because the mix of repair to old cloth was changing.
Rogers later proved that there was cotton that should not exist, and the structure of linen was different. The journals radiocarbon and archeometry are owned by the labs that screwed up, so for years their peer review prevented criticism.
If the real data had been released, the problem would have been analysed then.
It was a conspiracy to fraud. No other word for it.
The nature article It demonstrates what controlled tests have, that peer review is a chocolate fireguard. They even allowed the nonsense that is garlaschellis fake to appear in a journal, despite the fact the chemistry does not match at all. So do not trust peer review on any controversial topic. Not least because a scientific test of peer review, generally, showed peer review did not even find basic errors! Yes really!
4/ other physiochemical tests starting with fanti (there are several) show the fabric is first century. Mineral deposits on both shroud and sudarium in the nose area are consistent with jerusalem aragonite.
Reality is almost all data on the shroud hints at real not fake.
Only one test ever hinted at medieaval fake,the RC test was an incompetent fraud.
Later mitchondrial DNA tests are fascinating. On the tunic of argentuille, a Jewish only genetic anomaly is noticed.
Anyway, thats my last comment on it all. hopefully some will look at the science.
Sadly there is so much disinformation on the web, I suggest all read the books.
Shroud.com is your friend.