The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

Thanks Peepette.I would like to note that linking a video is not an argument. However, the reproduction has never been submitted for peer review as it doesn't have the same chemistry or physical properties of the Shroud.Final RebuttalsEdessaI already addressed Con's arguments. The 4 folds being noted are proof that we are dealing with the Shroud. That more detail was added to previous tales was also explained. That the Edessans allegedly "made up" facts about the Shroud in the 6th Century that accurately describe the Shroud are proof of the appearance of a Cloth bearing the image of Jesus that defied explanation. At most the argument is evidence of a period of unknown location, and not of forgery, yet the accurate description in the Hymn of the Pearl is strong evidence for an earlier (though possibly not continuous) knowledge of the Shroud in Edessa. One possible alternate location being Antioch [42].I said that con's 2 arguments were throw aways because even if they are 100% true (somebody painted a "copy" and another claimant to the Shroud) has no actual bearing on whether this is the authentic Shroud.Con attempts to discredit the fact that only one object in all of history has been recorded using the word tetradiplon - the Shroud. I concede that Veronica's Veil is not in the Bible - my apologies, I shouldn't only go by memory. It is of little importance. If only the face was visible because the shroud was folded tetradiplon then it would seem that it was only a face cloth. Once again, a lack of knowledge is not a lack of proof.Pray CodexCon's entire argument is limited to the fact that the artist chose to only show certain elements in one frame and not the other. Con compares these: The lid on the upper image is rectangular, whereas the shroud on the image below is folded creating a diagonal cut. So either this artist was incapable of drawing a rectangle or he was not drawing a sarcophagus lid. As noted in the Round 2 red crosses artistically denote Christ's blood - shown on the inside surface of the shroud. The hole marks on the shroud are not a pattern like on the angel's wings or the second woman's neck, but located in a specific place on roughly the same location of both sides of the shroud. Like on the shroud, only 4 fingers visible on Jesus' hands whereas everyone else has thumbs. Finally the top image pattern is consistent whereas the bottom pattern zags in and back out, just like a herringbone weave - not at all alike.ScienceCon insinuates disingenuosity with my shroud image from 2nd Century Jordan. Jordan was not part of Israel, so it didn't matter if the body was wrapped in wool. It merely shows the burial customs of the region at this time. Con goes on to note that the dead are no longer subject to the mixing of fibres. However, she quotes Matthew. Matthew is the Gospel for the Jews - it is believed that it was originally written in Aramaic. [43] Matthew's noting of a clean linen cloth "ought to be therefore interpreted in a distinctive Jewish way, that is as ritual purity or cleanliness" [20] "The usual word to mention burial shrouds in the Talmud (and in modern Hebrew as well) is takrik / takrikim or takrikin: in the whole Bible there's asingle occurrence of this word, in the Book of Esther (8:15) and it refers to a fine linen cloak (...i.e. a particularly valuable linen)" [20] The Shroud was an expensive cloth. Such an expensive cloth would have been woven in a sindonic manner so that it could be used for any purpose. Joseph of Aramathea spared no expense. Con claims that wrap does not mean drape.Wrap: To arrange or fold (something) about as cover or protection [52]A shroud folded over the body meets the definition as well as one tightly bound.C14 TestingIt is sad that Con has resorted to using the pejorative term shroudies.Con attempts to discredit my peer reviewed paper: Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin by claiming the author wasn't an actual scientist.Ray Rogers:- B.Sc. - University of Arizona 1950- Explosive research expert and thermal analyst 1951-1988 - Los Alamos National Laboratories (one of the largest science and technology institutions in the world [45])- 1987-1992 Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (equivalent rank of Lt. General) - received a Distinguished Service Award- Over 40 peer reviewed papers- Considered leading expert in thermal analysis.[44]If a man who is top in his field, working for one of the most prestigious laboratories in the world, cannot be considered a scientist - who can?What about the man Con calls a scientist:Joe Nickell - Ph.D. in English [46]. 'Nuff said.3 labs did the C14 testing, however they all really tested the same sample. There is no proof that this one sample was representative of the whole of the shroud: "the Chi Square test, which determines comparability of two or more disparate samples, should be lower than 6. The Chi Square test value for the Shroud is 6.4, meaning that the subsamples cannot be... from the same representative sample" thus the carbon testing fails a statistical homogeneity test between the samples.This is consistent with the contamination theory. The testing labs have refused to publish the raw data [22] preventing independent peer review of the C14 tests!Con argues that the test sample was analyzed by textile experts. Under what conditions? Did they use microscopes? Chemical tests? Nope. The sampling conditions were not documented. Only a simple visual inspection in poor lighting. Riggi (the man who cut the sample from the Shroud) wrote, "the poor visibility of the details of the cloth could make uncertain the observation and critical any technical precision intervention on the cloth".Dissimilar material cut off the sample was previously noted - there was repair material present. I showed in the previous round the intertwined threads of dissimilar material. Rogers also obtained threads from the radiocarbon sample on which he chemically confirmed the presence of gum and dyes. [24]Con quotes Dr. McCrone as her expert, yet his work was not peer reviewed because he only published in his own magazine. [48] McCrone was "asked if he had treated them (purported paint samples) chemically, his answer was "I didn't have to." ...When one one of his colleagues exclaimed, "Do you mean you just looked through your microscope and, without doing specific test for iron oxide, can proclaim it a painting?" McCrone confidently replied, "Yes." [47]There is primate blood (i.e. human) on the shroud. [49]RelicsThe sale of relics has nothing to do with the authenticity of the shroud if you cannot show a creation method.1st CenturyCon states there is no evidence of anyone picking up the shroud. That all 4 gospels specifically made note of the shroud, is strong evidence of something special.Con has no answer to the fact that the shroud has been verified as being 2 strips of the same cloth that were stitched back together using a technique only seen in 1st Century Israel - other than indignation.Con also failed to provide recorded evidence of one other man scourged, crown of thorns, crucified and speared with a Roman Hasta. This crucifixion was unique.Robert de ClariMy apologies - I don't know what happened... You are correct that it should say so that the form (not wounds) of Our Lord could clearly be seen. This is actually superior wording for my case.That the Shroud was placed in the Chapel of Pharos when it arrived in Constantinople does not mean it could not have moved to a different church prior to the 4th Crusade.PollenFrom Con's paper:Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East. And some plants were not yet present into Europe during the Medieval period. [51]LimestoneIt isn't just Travertine Argonite Limestone, but the levels of iron and strontium, that made it a perfect match (except for the organics in the sample).MyhrrCon did not refute that myhrr could be present after I showed it could.D'Arcis LetterThis was fully refuted. No signed copy. Con ignores that the Papal letter she was quoting from was corrected. And completely ignores that ADDITIONAL indulgences were granted to those who VENERATED the Shroud in a letter only 6 months later. [18]ArtCon fails to actually address this argument. First that the image of Christ is naked is virtually unheard of. Next con completely ignores the Vignon marks. This 6th century the face of Jesus is deformed on the right side of the picture with large abnormal eyes and a crooked mouth. Nobody would incorporate this into their painting. Jesus, being God would be perfect - unless there was a pre-existing picture which showed him otherwise. That something can only be the Shroud. ConclusionI have shown strong historical evidence in literature and art of the shroud right back to Jerusalem. I have shown that the the cloth has 1st century Jewish stitching, that the banding patterns mean it cannot be newer than 4th Century AD.There is no known means of reproducing the image of the shroud short of a ultra high power laser. And the science is strongly in favour of the shroud. The C14 tests cannot be peer reviewed due to the labs withholding the data and the samples they tested fail applicable statistical homogeneity standards. At best, they are weak evidence to the contrary.Contrarily, Con's counter case has generally been to cast aspersions and insinuations.As such I conclude that the debate resolution: The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic has been positively upheld.References[42] http://tinyurl.com...[43] http://tinyurl.com...[44] http://tinyurl.com...[45] http://tinyurl.com...[46] http://tinyurl.com...[47] http://tinyurl.com...[48] http://tinyurl.com...[49] http://tinyurl.com...[50] http://tinyurl.com...[51] http://tinyurl.com...[52] http://tinyurl.com...