Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] Re: test

Expand Messages
  • Weasel
    The following is the response of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal to the recent media reports that pollen analysis
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 6 8:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The following is the response of the Committee for the Scientific
      Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal to the recent media reports that
      pollen analysis suggests an earlier date for the Shroud of Turin then that
      established by the C14 dating. Nothing new or persuasive here, just a
      rehash of some very dubious evidence. Don't these folks ever give up?

      What irks me is why none of the media reports raised any questions on the
      validity of this supposed evidence.
      -------------------------------------------
      RECENT SHROUD CLAIMS BASED ON EARLIER, SCIENTIFICALLY DISCREDITED DATA

      AMHERST, N.Y.--New claims that pollen grains on the Shroud of Turin link it
      to pre-eighth-century Jerusalem were made August 2 by researchers at the
      International Botanical Congress in St. Louis. In fact, however, the claims
      are based on earlier, scientifically discredited data. Here is a brief
      review of some of the claims that were reported uncritically by the
      Associated Press and other media sources.

      POLLENS: It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from
      Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max
      Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hilter Diaries" genuine. Frei's
      tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since
      similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had
      comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were
      examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except
      for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end),
      rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See
      Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)

      FLORAL IMAGES. Accompanying the unscientific pollen evidence were claims
      that faint plant images have been "tentatively" identified on the shroud.
      These follow previous "discoveries" of "Roman coins" over the eyes and even
      Latin and Greek words, such as "Jesus" and "Nazareth," that some researchers
      see-Rorschach-like-in the shroud's mottled stains. The floral images were
      reported by a psychiatrist who has taken up image analysis and made other
      discredited claims about the shroud image.

      BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB
      blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other
      fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only
      suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they
      failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The
      "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and
      vermilion tempera paint.

      OVIEDO CLOTH. Uncritical reportage suggested the Shroud of Turin gained
      credibility by being linked to another notorious cloth, the Sudarium of
      Oviedo, which some believe was the "napkin" that covered Jesus' face.
      Unfortunately like other "relics" of Jesus-some 40 shrouds, vials of his
      blood and tears, and other products of medieval relic-mongering-the Oviedo
      cloth is of questionable provenance. It has no historical record prior to
      the eighth century and, in contrast to the shroud, lacks a facial image. The
      supposed matching of bloodstains on the Turin and Oviedo cloths is but
      another exercise in wishful thinking. As to the alleged matchup of pollens,
      once again the evidence comes from the questionable tapes of Max Frei.

      DATING. The assertion that blood and pollen matching prove the Shroud of
      Turin dates to at least the eighth century is--based on the evidence--absurd.
      The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate
      laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's
      report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger
      and that he had confessed.

      CONCLUSION. As in the past, claims that the Turin cloth may be authentic
      are simply based on "shroud science"--an approach that begins with the
      desired answer. In contrast, genuine science demonstrates emphatically that
      the shroud image is the work of a medieval artist and that the cloth never
      held a body--let alone that of Jesus.

      Summary critique prepared by Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow with the
      Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
      (CSICOP) and author of _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_.
      ================


      David A. Jones
      San Francisco
    • joseph@wco.com
      ... I notice Tom Simms absence now. No one has posted about the pollen and blood test comparisons on the shroud of Turin and the face cloth. Both reveal pollen
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 8 10:58 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Joe Baxter wrote:

        I notice Tom Simms absence now. No one has posted about the
        pollen and blood test comparisons on the shroud of Turin and the face
        cloth. Both reveal pollen in one area, from a thistle which only
        flowers in March and April in Jersualem. (The flower patterns on the
        shroud are quite remarkable) As I understand the reports, both have
        matching AB type blood patterns. Type AB, I believe, is fairly
        uncommon. (1/100?)

        According to the NY Times report, the face cloth has an established
        first century date. Does anyone know how that date is said to be
        established?

        Sam Gibson replied:
        >
        > Now all we have to do is find some passage from a reliable text which
        states
        > that Jesus had type AB blood and there will be something of a chance
        that
        > this is a genuine artifact from Jesus. Somehow, I don't think that
        this is
        > forthcoming.

        Well, I don't think that is the point, which goes to the synchronous
        nature of the findings for the two cloths. Rather unusual that they
        have the same blood type, especially if the type is very uncommon. Then
        the common blood patterns, and the pollen evidence. I am sure someone
        can run a statistical evaluation on this. This creates strong support
        for the view that the two cloths have a common origin.


        The face cloth, by the way is called the Sudarium of Oviedo.
        >
        > Of course, we would still have to consider all of the other evidence
        against
        > this notion (C14 testing, a grotesquely shaped human, taller in the
        back
        > then the front, etc, etc) of authenticity but I suppose that we could
        do
        > that.

        Of course this throws doubt upon the carbon testing, as for which there
        were already strong grounds for doubt. The wax carbon (devotional
        candles, etc., over the centuries)levels in the cloth were quite high,
        and this would throw off the C14 tests.

        Grotesquely shaped? Well, I think that supports authenticity. The shape
        would appear to be the product of the natural processes which caused
        the image. An artist could be expected to produce non-grotesque shapes.

        With kind regards,

        Joe Baxter
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... The Sudarium of Oviedo can be traced with certainty to 614 CE when it began a circuitous route to Spain. It is the Testaments of B. Pelagius that place it
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 9 12:42 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          joseph@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > >
          > > Joe Baxter wrote:
          >
          > I notice Tom Simms absence now. No one has posted about the
          > pollen and blood test comparisons on the shroud of Turin and the face
          > cloth. Both reveal pollen in one area, from a thistle which only
          > flowers in March and April in Jersualem. (The flower patterns on the
          > shroud are quite remarkable) As I understand the reports, both have
          > matching AB type blood patterns. Type AB, I believe, is fairly
          > uncommon. (1/100?)
          >
          > According to the NY Times report, the face cloth has an established
          > first century date. Does anyone know how that date is said to be
          > established?

          The Sudarium of Oviedo can be traced with certainty to 614 CE when
          it began a circuitous route to Spain. It is the Testaments of
          B. Pelagius that place it in Jerusalem from the first century.

          >
          > Sam Gibson replied:
          > >
          > > Now all we have to do is find some passage from a reliable text which
          > states
          > > that Jesus had type AB blood and there will be something of a chance
          > that
          > > this is a genuine artifact from Jesus. Somehow, I don't think that
          > this is
          > > forthcoming.
          >
          > Well, I don't think that is the point, which goes to the synchronous
          > nature of the findings for the two cloths. Rather unusual that they
          > have the same blood type, especially if the type is very uncommon. Then
          > the common blood patterns, and the pollen evidence. I am sure someone
          > can run a statistical evaluation on this. This creates strong support
          > for the view that the two cloths have a common origin.

          The bloodstains on the cloth are an exact match to those of the
          Shroud of Turin. Pollen specific to the dead sea thistle is found
          both on the Sudarium and the shroud.

          >
          > The face cloth, by the way is called the Sudarium of Oviedo.
          > >
          > > Of course, we would still have to consider all of the other evidence
          > against
          > > this notion (C14 testing, a grotesquely shaped human, taller in the
          > back
          > > then the front, etc, etc) of authenticity but I suppose that we could
          > do
          > > that.
          >
          > Of course this throws doubt upon the carbon testing, as for which there
          > were already strong grounds for doubt. The wax carbon (devotional
          > candles, etc., over the centuries)levels in the cloth were quite high,
          > and this would throw off the C14 tests.

          There is no doubt in my mind that the bioplastic varnish on the shroud
          skewed the AMS dating.

          >
          > Grotesquely shaped? Well, I think that supports authenticity. The shape
          > would appear to be the product of the natural processes which caused
          > the image. An artist could be expected to produce non-grotesque shapes.

          Actually, the image on the shroud is too perfectly proportioned to
          be the work of an artist.

          I have always supported the shroud as a genuine artifact of a very
          early crucifixion..on scientific grounds... and have published
          accordingly in the Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America.
          I usually hesitate to discuss "shroud stuff" on Xtalk since my
          scientific evaluation is totally sequestered from any attempt to
          identify the corpse it once covered.

          The evidence is strong that the 84x53 cm cloth, known as the
          Sudarium of Oviedo, was part and parcel of the same provenance
          as the shroud of Turin. Forensic examination suggests that the
          Sudarium covered the blooded face of the corpse that the shroud
          covered..and was soaked with blood and removed before the shroud
          was placed over the body.

          Dr. Mattingly of the University of Texas Health Science Center
          has purified DNA from the type AB blood found on some shroud
          fibrils. I don't know if a gel has been run. The best and
          most convincing scientific protocol would be to purify and
          pcr blood from the Sudarium and sequence it alongside the
          shroud sample, in the presence of controls. The sudarium
          as a companion artifact of the shroud of Turin will prove...
          and I emphasize this...ONLY that the shroud is much older
          than the AMS dating. In fact, as far as I am concerned,
          that has already been proven to my satisfaction by other
          means. The sudarium as an artifact of the same burial as
          the shroud of Turin does NOT prove the corpse was Jesus
          of Nazareth.

          Jack
          --
          ______________________________________________

          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

          Jack Kilmon
          jkilmon@...

          http://www.historian.net
        • mgrondin@tir.com
          One little question: If the Sudarium is the face-cloth connected with the Shroud, and the Shroud shows the face of a man rather clearly, wouldn t the Sudarium
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 9 6:44 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            One little question:

            If the Sudarium is the face-cloth connected with the Shroud, and the
            Shroud shows the face of a man rather clearly, wouldn't the Sudarium
            necessarily show the same face? I assume that it doesn't, since I've
            never seen a picture of (or even mention of) the Sudarium in my
            readings about the Shroud. So, aside from the other "evidence", why
            don't the two have the same facial image?

            Mike
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... The image on the shroud is something that developed over time through, as yet, unidentified means, but may be related to acid oxidation caused by the
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 9 12:00 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              mgrondin@... wrote:

              > One little question:
              >
              > If the Sudarium is the face-cloth connected with the Shroud, and the
              > Shroud shows the face of a man rather clearly, wouldn't the Sudarium
              > necessarily show the same face? I assume that it doesn't, since I've
              > never seen a picture of (or even mention of) the Sudarium in my
              > readings about the Shroud. So, aside from the other "evidence", why
              > don't the two have the same facial image?
              >
              > Mike

              The image on the shroud is something that "developed" over time through,
              as yet, unidentified means, but may be related to acid oxidation caused
              by the same bacterial culture, i.e. Rhodococcus, that deposited..and
              continues to deposit, bioplastic polmer varnish. The Sudarium displays
              only blood stains that appears to have been removed from the corpse
              before the shroud was overlaid. I still maintain that the only definitive
              test, despite the numeric improbability of the mirroring blood stains
              and pollen from the Dead Sea thistle on both artifacts, to be a DNA
              comparison of the AB type blood of the sudarium with that of the
              AB type blood on the shroud. This would be a definitive and
              unimpeachable verification of at least a 7th century origin for the
              shroud of Turin.

              Again, I emphasize that ALL scientific analyses should be performed
              without any consideration over the identity of the "man in the shroud,"
              an issue that has "infected" the opinions of early date proponents and
              opponents.

              Jack
              --
              Great savings on high speed
              wireless or hardwire T-1s,
              DS-3, Web design and hosting.

              Jack Kilmon
              Account Executive
              IJNT
              713-462-4222

              http://www.ijnt.net
            • Ramon Garcia
              All this talk of the shroud seems to indicate an implicit conviction on the part of a few scholars like Jack that this is Jesus burial cloth. Does that mean
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 9 5:49 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                All this talk of the shroud seems to indicate an implicit conviction on the
                part of a few scholars like Jack that this is Jesus' burial cloth. Does
                that mean that it is the mainline view that Jesus was indeed buried. Funny
                that this post follows the recent string of posts on Joseph of Arimathea.
                So which is it scholars. Battle between heart and head (shroud vs
                scholarship)?



                At 02:00 PM 8/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
                >
                >
                >mgrondin@... wrote:
                >
                >> One little question:
                >>
                >> If the Sudarium is the face-cloth connected with the Shroud, and the
                >> Shroud shows the face of a man rather clearly, wouldn't the Sudarium
                >> necessarily show the same face? I assume that it doesn't, since I've
                >> never seen a picture of (or even mention of) the Sudarium in my
                >> readings about the Shroud. So, aside from the other "evidence", why
                >> don't the two have the same facial image?
                >>
                >> Mike
                >
                >The image on the shroud is something that "developed" over time through,
                >as yet, unidentified means, but may be related to acid oxidation caused
                >by the same bacterial culture, i.e. Rhodococcus, that deposited..and
                >continues to deposit, bioplastic polmer varnish. The Sudarium displays
                >only blood stains that appears to have been removed from the corpse
                >before the shroud was overlaid. I still maintain that the only definitive
                >test, despite the numeric improbability of the mirroring blood stains
                >and pollen from the Dead Sea thistle on both artifacts, to be a DNA
                >comparison of the AB type blood of the sudarium with that of the
                >AB type blood on the shroud. This would be a definitive and
                >unimpeachable verification of at least a 7th century origin for the
                >shroud of Turin.
                >
                >Again, I emphasize that ALL scientific analyses should be performed
                >without any consideration over the identity of the "man in the shroud,"
                >an issue that has "infected" the opinions of early date proponents and
                >opponents.
                >
                >Jack
                >--
                >Great savings on high speed
                >wireless or hardwire T-1s,
                >DS-3, Web design and hosting.
                >
                >Jack Kilmon
                >Account Executive
                >IJNT
                >713-462-4222
                >
                >http://www.ijnt.net
                >
                >
                >
                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,
                >NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9% FIXED APR. Apply online today!
                >http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/606
                >
                >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... Actually, I thought I was rather explicit that my conviction, based on science not faith, was that the shroud of Turin is a very early artifact. The
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 9 8:07 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ramon Garcia wrote:
                  >
                  > All this talk of the shroud seems to indicate an implicit conviction on the
                  > part of a few scholars like Jack that this is Jesus' burial cloth. Does
                  > that mean that it is the mainline view that Jesus was indeed buried. Funny
                  > that this post follows the recent string of posts on Joseph of Arimathea.
                  > So which is it scholars. Battle between heart and head (shroud vs
                  > scholarship)?

                  Actually, I thought I was rather explicit that my conviction, based on
                  science
                  not faith, was that the shroud of Turin is a very early artifact. The
                  identity
                  of the corpse it once covered can not be addressed by science, therefore
                  must
                  be excluded from any scientific analysis.

                  Jack

                  --
                  ______________________________________________

                  taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                  Jack Kilmon
                  jkilmon@...

                  http://www.historian.net
                • mgrondin@tir.com
                  ... So much for the instantaneous blast of divine energy idea, huh? But I wouldn t mind hearing your explanation again of how a cloth that s draped over a
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 9 8:38 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jack Kilmon writes:
                    > The image on the shroud is something that "developed" over time ...

                    So much for the instantaneous blast of divine energy idea, huh? But I
                    wouldn't mind hearing your explanation again of how a cloth that's
                    draped over a 3-dimensional object can produce an image that appears
                    "normal" when laid flat. (Remember Mahlon's objection of long ago?)

                    > ...through
                    > as yet unidentified means, but may be related to acid oxidation caused
                    > by the same bacterial culture, i.e. Rhodococcus, that deposited..and
                    > continues to deposit, bioplastic polmer varnish. The Sudarium displays
                    > only blood stains that appears to have been removed from the corpse
                    > before the shroud was overlaid.

                    So when we identify this unknown method, we can develop a fast-acting
                    reagent and cause heretofore invisible images to appear? Zowee! But
                    seriously, I'm now confused about the function of the face-cloth. It
                    wasn't left on the face, you say? But John says that Yeshu's face-cloth
                    had been on/around the head of the body (from which I inferred that
                    this
                    was the normal use of such a cloth). On what basis do you infer that
                    the
                    sudarium was removed from the head of (whoever's) corpse before the
                    shroud was overlaid? Is it because, if the cloth had been left on the
                    head, it would have absorbed the facial oils, and the resulting image
                    on the shroud (assuming the two are connected) would be virtually
                    "headless"? If that's your reasoning, does John's description of the
                    linens in the tomb rule out the possibility that both Sudarium and
                    Shroud once encased Yeshu's body?

                    > I still maintain that the only definitive
                    > test, despite the numeric improbability of the mirroring blood stains
                    > and pollen from the Dead Sea thistle on both artifacts, to be a DNA
                    > comparison of the AB type blood of the sudarium with that of the
                    > AB type blood on the shroud.

                    Hey, if we can get the DNA, let's clone the dude!

                    Mike
                  • Liz Fried
                    ... I ll offer the egg! Liz
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 10 5:28 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Hey, if we can get the DNA, let's clone the dude!
                      I'll offer the egg!
                      Liz

                      >
                      > Mike
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores
                      > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more!
                      > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/690
                      >
                      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                      >
                      >
                    • Steven Carr
                      In message , joseph@wco.com writes ... According to Joe Nickell s book, the reports of pollen are only claimed by Max Frei , somebody
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 13 3:12 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In message <7olqmv$b0fe@...>, joseph@... writes

                        >> Joe Baxter wrote:

                        > I notice Tom Simms absence now. No one has posted about the
                        >pollen and blood test comparisons on the shroud of Turin and the face
                        >cloth. Both reveal pollen in one area, from a thistle which only
                        >flowers in March and April in Jersualem. (The flower patterns on the
                        >shroud are quite remarkable) As I understand the reports, both have
                        >matching AB type blood patterns. Type AB, I believe, is fairly
                        >uncommon. (1/100?)

                        According to Joe Nickell's book, the reports of pollen are only claimed
                        by Max Frei , somebody who claimed Hitler's diaries were also genuine.

                        Many of the claimed species of pollen are insect-pollinated and do not
                        blow about to be collected by cloths. How did they get on the cloth?

                        Pollen is also hard to identify. Has anybody other than Herr Frei found
                        this pollen?

                        >According to the NY Times report, the face cloth has an established
                        >first century date. Does anyone know how that date is said to be
                        >established?

                        No idea.

                        <skip>


                        >Of course this throws doubt upon the carbon testing, as for which there
                        >were already strong grounds for doubt. The wax carbon (devotional
                        >candles, etc., over the centuries)levels in the cloth were quite high,
                        >and this would throw off the C14 tests.

                        Unlikely. Are there already strong grounds for doubt? The person who
                        claimed they were false is a certain Dmitry Kuznetsov, a documented
                        liar.


                        >Grotesquely shaped? Well, I think that supports authenticity. The shape
                        >would appear to be the product of the natural processes which caused
                        >the image. An artist could be expected to produce non-grotesque shapes.

                        A flat, photographic image is not produced by wrapping a cloth around a
                        3-D body.



                        --
                        Steven Carr
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... I will reply to this on list, with apologies, and suggest that further discussion be held off list. Although some aspects of the scientific analysis of
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 13 6:01 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Steven Carr wrote:
                          >
                          > In message <7olqmv$b0fe@...>, joseph@... writes
                          >
                          > >> Joe Baxter wrote:
                          >
                          > > I notice Tom Simms absence now. No one has posted about the
                          > >pollen and blood test comparisons on the shroud of Turin and the face
                          > >cloth. Both reveal pollen in one area, from a thistle which only
                          > >flowers in March and April in Jersualem. (The flower patterns on the
                          > >shroud are quite remarkable) As I understand the reports, both have
                          > >matching AB type blood patterns. Type AB, I believe, is fairly
                          > >uncommon. (1/100?)
                          >
                          > According to Joe Nickell's book, the reports of pollen are only claimed
                          > by Max Frei , somebody who claimed Hitler's diaries were also genuine.

                          I will reply to this on list, with apologies, and suggest that further
                          discussion be held off list. Although some aspects of the scientific
                          analysis of the shroud of Turin may be tangentially interesting to the
                          membership, it is a subject that attracts some of the silliest arguments
                          I have ever seen from both sides, "shroudophiles" and skeptics alike,
                          lay and academic. The shroudophile camp has a tendency to interject
                          faith-based opinions and miracle stories. The skeptic academic is
                          usually out of his field when addressing the analytical mathodologies.
                          Now, to the above statement:

                          Yonatan Nadelman, in his contribution to this thread Aug 12:

                          Due to the interest in this subject by many listers, I went
                          directly to Uri Baruch (Palynologist of the Israel Antiquities
                          Authority)
                          who did the annalysis on the pollen from the shroud in 1997 and 1998).
                          Associates in the general study were Avinoam Danin (botanist of the
                          Hebrew
                          University of Jerusalem), Allan Whanger (ex-Emeritus Duke University)
                          and
                          Mary Whanger. Appreciation is extended to Uri Baruch for his cooperation
                          in supplying and approving the information sent in this post.
                          Baruch says that while in general it is true that pollen tends
                          to
                          disintergrate, the pollen remaining on the shroud may be the exception
                          to
                          that tendency. First, it is theorized (by Baruch and his associates)
                          that
                          a significant quantity of flowers were wrapped by the shroud. (Their
                          recent study showed the imprint of flowers [first noticed by Allan
                          Whanger
                          and later confirmed and identified by Avinoam Danin] on the shroud.
                          There
                          were some but not all of the flowers represented by the pollen.) In turn
                          these flowers shed millions of pollen grains on the cloth, as is the
                          tendency of flowers. It is therefore not unfeasible that a fraction of
                          that quantity, perhaps a few hundred grains would survive even for a few
                          millennia.
                          An article by Baruch and his associates will be appearing soon
                          in
                          the _Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens_.

                          > Many of the claimed species of pollen are insect-pollinated and do not
                          > blow about to be collected by cloths. How did they get on the cloth?

                          By direct contact between the pollen-laden blossoms and the shroud.

                          >
                          > Pollen is also hard to identify. Has anybody other than Herr Frei found
                          > this pollen?

                          Pollen can be identified by experienced palynologists.

                          >
                          > >According to the NY Times report, the face cloth has an established
                          > >first century date. Does anyone know how that date is said to be
                          > >established?
                          >
                          > No idea.

                          The Sudarium can be place with certainty to the 8th century. The 1st
                          century date is assumed by indirect evidence.

                          >
                          > <skip>
                          >
                          > >Of course this throws doubt upon the carbon testing, as for which there
                          > >were already strong grounds for doubt. The wax carbon (devotional
                          > >candles, etc., over the centuries)levels in the cloth were quite high,
                          > >and this would throw off the C14 tests.
                          >
                          > Unlikely. Are there already strong grounds for doubt? The person who
                          > claimed they were false is a certain Dmitry Kuznetsov, a documented
                          > liar.

                          I don't know the source for "skeptics" claim that Kuznetsov is a "liar"
                          and can only address his science. There is much stronger evidence for
                          the skewed AMS dating by the presence of the biopolymer coating on the
                          shroud fibrils in quantities (sometimes 70% or more of the fibril
                          weight)
                          sufficient in extrinsic C14 to cause a 14th dating. This bioplastic
                          "varnish" was not removed by the radiocarbonists cleaning methodology,
                          even when enhanced.

                          >
                          > >Grotesquely shaped? Well, I think that supports authenticity. The shape
                          > >would appear to be the product of the natural processes which caused
                          > >the image. An artist could be expected to produce non-grotesque shapes.
                          >
                          > A flat, photographic image is not produced by wrapping a cloth around a
                          > 3-D body.

                          Then we can always go to the equally silly argument that the shroud
                          is a photograph by some medieval genius or by, as one book claims,
                          Leonardo who was born 62 years later than the AMS terminus.

                          How the shroud got to be illustrated in a manuscript of 1192,
                          68 years before the earliest possible AMS dating and 260 years
                          before Leonardo was even soiling his diapers remains to be
                          addressed.

                          It is my opinion, on the scientific evidence, that the shroud of
                          Turin is a very early artifact of a real burial of a crucified
                          individual. The identity of that individual cannot be addressed
                          by scientific analysis.

                          Again, my apologies to my fellow X-talkers and I will not address
                          this issue onlist again.

                          Jack

                          --
                          ______________________________________________

                          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                          Jack Kilmon
                          jkilmon@...

                          http://www.historian.net
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          This was posted to the list ok Jack ... -- Great savings on high speed wireless or hardwire T-1s, DS-3, Web design and hosting. Jack Kilmon Account Executive
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 20 3:08 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This was posted to the list ok

                            Jack

                            "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

                            > Sorry to waste bandwidth -- but I've sent two messages to the List which
                            > so far as I can tell have not arrived, so I'm testing to see if I am
                            > somehow being prevented from getting through.
                            >
                            > Yours,
                            >
                            > Jeffrey
                            > --
                            > Jeffrey B. Gibson
                            > 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                            > Chicago, Illinois 60626
                            > e-mail jgibson000@...
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online.
                            > Start with up to 150 Points for joining!
                            > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/765
                            >
                            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                            > To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com

                            --
                            Great savings on high speed
                            wireless or hardwire T-1s,
                            DS-3, Web design and hosting.

                            Jack Kilmon
                            Account Executive
                            IJNT
                            713-462-4222

                            http://www.ijnt.net
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.