It is funny that this got posted while I was off making brittle for the holidays,

I didn't realize I was making jesus.

Jesus really was superhuman. Hell, the Shroud of Turin shows us that his blood was Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide. That's definitely not the blood of a mere mortal. No sir.

LOL what the hell is this "one scientific site"?

Do some research there are a bunch. The carbon dating was flawed. Again I am not saying if it was Jesus or not. I'm jus not so ignorant to make statments without research. You don't believe so you put your head in the ground. It's not a painting and it's not a photo. Whatever it is it's not a forgerey. May not be Jesus, but they didn't fake it.

GROW UP!!!

The Earth is flat too, right. Or do you believe the Appolo conspiracy too?

Are you saying it's flawed because of the fire? If so, here's what a pretty respectable microchemist has to say about that:


The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

Source - http://skepdic.com/shroud.html (Has some good info on this.)

http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38765319358d.htm
http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

POOP LOOPS There was also a television show where they challenged artists from around the world and focused on Hollywood FX masters to recreate it. They could only do it with lasers.

Besides I thought this was supposed to be about MA here not religion. There are also hundreds of sites that prove through fossil record Darwin was wrong. Are we going to get into that. Or Buddha? Mohamed? Branch Davidians? You want to believe you are an ape, I believe you are too. As far as the shroud, whatever it is, it's not a fabrication. I never said it was Jesus, but the ignorance and hate to just say it's a fake is just stupid. There is a ton of things that defy explanation.

I believe there are such a thing as UFOs too. Are they from another world or our own GOV. Who knows, but I wont be so stupid to say if there are lights in the sky that no one can explain, there were never lights in the first place. I saw what was defined as a UFO in the 80s. Turned out it was a GOV rocket test, classified. To this day the official report is UFO. Does that make it less real?

Do some research there are a bunch. The carbon dating was flawed. Again I am not saying if it was Jesus or not. I'm jus not so ignorant to make statments without research. You don't believe so you put your head in the ground. It's not a painting and it's not a photo. Whatever it is it's not a forgerey. May not be Jesus, but they didn't fake it.

GROW UP!!!

The Earth is flat too, right. Or do you believe the Appolo conspiracy too?


Wow, not answering the question AND misspelling Apollo. Cheers.

Are you saying it's flawed because of the fire? If so, here's what a pretty respectable microchemist has to say about that:



Source - http://skepdic.com/shroud.html (Has some good info on this.)

I'm saying it's flawed due to improper science. These people were just so hell bent on proving it was not Jesus they didn't try to find out what it really was. No one looked into what the hell it really is. It's either real and Jesus, or it's a fraud and not real. No grey area. It's as bad as polotics and has no place on an MA site.

Wow, not answering the question AND misspelling Apollo. Cheers.

Answered the question pleanty. And you're dodging my point.

Answered the question pleanty. And you're dodging my point.


He asked what site and you didn't give it. I don't see how that is answering the question "pleanty."

I'm saying it's flawed due to improper science. These people were just so hell bent on proving it was not Jesus they didn't try to find out what it really was. No one looked into what the hell it really is. It's either real and Jesus, or it's a fraud and not real. No grey area. It's as bad as polotics and has no place on an MA site.Could you please elaborate on why the science was improper?

He asked what site and you didn't give it. I don't see how that is answering the question "pleanty."

I gave three sites. Should I give 20. I don't know weather it is Jesus or not. Quite frankly I don't trust anything the Catholic Church says. I don't think Jesus would leave anything aside from believers. God does not prove himself. That is what I believe and I also believe the Catholic church if full of fraud and self serving. I just don't believe they were that good. I am a Christian though and don't appreciate the generalization and ignorance to those of us who are. I don't need such things. Proof is for those who don't truely beleive.

Don't get me off on the other problems with the Church, as I said this is supposed to be about MA. The Pope was meant to rule the world and had other Christian sects murdered.l The Catholic Church was formed as a political organization that capitolized on Christ and substituted saints for the Greek and Roman Gods due to the fact they didn't believe they could sell monotheism.

Proof is for those who don't truely beleive.?????

from one of the pages listed:


The Issue of the Shroud's Age for the Shadow Shroud

Wilson is assuming that the cloth is medieval, created sometime in the 13th to 14th century, a timeframe based on carbon 14 dating in 1988. He is aware, that the date was challenged by by Raymond N. Rogers, a Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, scientist. He wrote: "but those objections [=Rogers' findings] have only just gained definite credibility."

What in the world does he mean by "only just gained?"

He went on to write: "I have no desire to defend the carbon-dating performed on the Shroud, particularly after Rogers' recent findings. Regardless, such artistic argumentation proves nothing."

Artistic argumentation? It is nothing of the sort. Rogers' findings are purely scientific, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is pure chemistry; pure science. Rogers not only proved that the carbon 14 samples, used in 1988, were invalid, but showed that the cloth was at least 1300 years old and possibly much older. This puts Wilson's artistic method of painting on glass plate well beyond the time when glass plate suitable for his creation was available.

ABC cited the 1988 carbon 14 tests and seemed unaware of the new findings. Did they not catch the news from Associated Press, BBC, Reuters, CNN and the New York Times? Did they not check their facts?

Glass - Shadow of Doubt

Shadow ShroudThe type of glass needed for Wilson's proposed shadow shroud process did not exist in 1357, the latest possible date for the Shroud of Turin if it was a fake-relic. No one questions that the Shroud existed by then.

Yet, it wasn't until the nineteenth century that glass suitable for Wilson's shadow shroud could be produced. The first flat plate glass wasn't produced until 1688. Before then, plate glass was blown plate, which was rare, very limited in size and very distorted. Glass, very rare in 1356, was poor quality with many imperfections. According to the PPG Industries website:

Flat glass for windows was still rare during much of the 17th and 18th centuries. Small panes were made by blowing a large glob of glass, removing it from the blowing iron and then rotating the glass quickly so it would spread and flatten. Such glass had a dimple in its center, many air bubbles and a pattern of concentric circles, but it was transparent and effective in keeping out the weather. At the end of the 17th century, the French learned how to grind and polish cast glass to produce plate glass, but only the rich could afford it.

Great strides were made in the manufacture of flat glass during the 19th century. Compressed air technology led to flatter, better glass panes. Controlled amounts of air were used to blow a large glass cylinder, which was slit lengthwise, reheated and allowed to flatten under its own weight. Large, relatively inexpensive lites of glass were produced in this manner. .................................................. ......................


This is one of many sites that claim the science was flawed. Today even the original scientist who did the carbon 14 samples said he was wrong. Not getting religious her, stating facts.

?????

I believe. I don't need proof. If I need proof then obviosly I don't believe. I am not trying to convert anyone, but if you have spiritual beliefs then why do you need proof? You either believe or you don't. If you can be swayed, what does that say about what you BELIEVE? You'd be a shmuck if you said there is no God and I showed you a website with pictures a timetraveler took proving that it's all real. Isn't that the shroud. You either believe or you don't. A painter's drop cloth won't change an inteligent mans mind.

Wait. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that the shroud is equivalent to
a website with pictures a timetraveler took proving that it's all real.?

Wait. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that the shroud is equivalent to ?

I'm saying the shroud is not a fake. You are being an ass and not trying to actually pay attention to what I am saying. It's what we call and ANALOGY. You asked about what I ment by if you believe you don't need proof. Such as right now I believe you are just an ass. You address nothinbg I am saying you are doing a Michael Moore type thing and cutting out little excerts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt you had a brain. I gave you websites dealing with science. You don't check them out due to a preconcieved notion it's not possible you could ever be wrong. I said I don't know or care weather the shroud is Jesus or not at least 5 times now. You are just going off on some childish BS.

My whole point was it is not for a MA forum. It's for a religious forum.