Repetitive bollocks. The area selected by radiocarbon dating was part of the cloth, it was examined (and the area has been examined subsequently) by everal textile experts (i.e people who know vastly more than you) and there was no magic invisible patch,
You are years behind the information curve, largely because you refuse to read anything that disagrees with what you want to believe. Yes, the sample was in fact taken from a patched area of the cloth, which is why it was later learned that the carbon dating test yielded impossibly divergent results, which the 1988 scientists failed to disclose.
You keep acting like science is on your side regarding the Shroud, but it is not.
The issue of contamination was well understood, hence the thorough, even extreme, cleansing methods. Which we've covered previously not that you are going to bother to read those facts.
Again, you are years behind the information curve--or else you're simply unaware of research that refutes this talking point. Here's an 8-minute video that explains why the 1988 carbon dating was invalid:
The Truth About the Shroud of Turin's 1988 Carbon Dating.
No actually it's not. In fact, as previously covered in this very thread, it's utter rubbish. Created using dubious methods by an "expert" who demonstrated his incompetence and criminality elsewhere. It has been long debunked. Even hardcore shroudies shy away from it.
You again show your reading has been woefully incomplete. More than one expert has discussed the pollen evidence, and the objections of skeptics to the pollen evidence have been answered (
LINK).
Uh-huh. You have no clue what you're talking about. If you could buy enough objectivity to read and view pro-Shroud material, you would discover that the Shroud does in fact contain 3D information. You could start with the 2010 documentary
The Real Face of Jesus?, which includes a team of graphics experts who document that the Shroud image contains 3D information and demonstrate how they verified this fact.
Uh, yes, it is. No credible scholar on the Shroud denies this well-known fact, a fact that was discovered in the late 1800s by a photographer who was commissioned to photograph the Shroud. Your denial is further proof that you really have no business even discussing this subject because your research has been so one-sided and incomplete.
A lie. I refer you to Walter McCrone's analysis and his findings regarding pigments.
McCrone's analysis is both deceptive and invalid. Again:
The only traces of paint are from duplicates of the Shroud that were pressed against the Shroud to sanctify the duplicates in earlier centuries. These are tiny flakes of paint. The linen fibers themselves show no trace of brush strokes, binder or pigment. Nothing has soaked in; nothing is present to soak in.
Only in very recent times have scientists found a way to discolor linen strands as they are found in the Shroud of Turin, discolorations penetrating only to a tiny fraction of the width of a human hair. It was done with microbursts from high energy lasers. (LINK)
The team of scientists who examined the Shroud for five days in 1978 reported as follows on this issue:
No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. (LINK)
What do you mean "forger"? The Lirey cloth was probably not created as a deliberate fake shroud, just used as one. Also untrue.
No human could have produced the Shroud in the 13th, 14th, of 15th century.
No, it is not untrue. You just won't read the scientific analyses that have established this fact.
No thanks. I prefer science rather than Apologetic ramblings.
Ah, there you go. You won't even dare yourself to watch serious science-based documentaries on the Shroud if you know they argue for the Shroud's authenticity. One of those documentaries is the above-mentioned 2010 documentary about a team of graphics experts who used sophisticated computer technology to analyze the Shroud. But, well, you won't even watch it--you summarily dismiss as "apologetic ramblings" even though you haven't watched five minutes of it.
No wonder you are so poorly informed about the evidence on the Shroud. You ignore the key principle of critical thinking to carefully study both/all sides of an argument before reaching conclusions about it.
