Skip to comments.
Original research team member says science still can't explain Shroud (with video)
cns ^
| April 24, 2013
| Lauren Colegrove
Posted on 04/28/2013 12:51:20 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
1
posted on
04/28/2013 12:51:21 PM PDT
by
NYer
To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
2
posted on
04/28/2013 12:51:40 PM PDT
by
NYer
(Beware the man of a single book - St. Thomas Aquinas)
To: Swordmaker; shroudie
3
posted on
04/28/2013 12:52:13 PM PDT
by
NYer
(Beware the man of a single book - St. Thomas Aquinas)
To: NYer
I have a shroud question if anyone knows. Are the wounds in the hand or in the wrist?
4
posted on
04/28/2013 12:59:30 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
(God is Love)
To: ex-snook
the hands are crossed with only the top viable but the one on top has a wound on the wrist
5
posted on
04/28/2013 1:05:23 PM PDT
by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: ex-snook
I have a shroud question if anyone knows. Are the wounds in the hand or in the wrist?In the wrist.
6
posted on
04/28/2013 1:07:38 PM PDT
by
sand88
To: ex-snook
See for yourself (click on image to see larger size)...
7
posted on
04/28/2013 1:08:00 PM PDT
by
RoosterRedux
(Obama's Chechens are coming home...to roost.)
To: NYer
In a paper published in 2005, chemist Raymond Rogers, member of the 1978 research team, challenged the claim that the shroud is a fake. He said the sample used in the 1988 carbon testing was a piece used to mend the cloth in the Middle Ages and that the methodology of the testing was erroneous.Before he died, Raymond Rogers withdrew his belief that the Shroud was from the Middle Ages. As a result of questions raised by research provided by Sue Benford, he went back and did more testing. He confirmed that the carbon dating was performed on a portion of the Shroud that was repaired.
8
posted on
04/28/2013 1:13:33 PM PDT
by
sand88
To: NYer
Statement: "Original research team member says science still can't explain Shroud ...."
Response: Ergo it is divine Q.E.D.
9
posted on
04/28/2013 1:13:33 PM PDT
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
To: ex-snook; Chode; sand88
Are the wounds in the hand or in the wrist? According to the experts who examined the shroud, the wounds are in the wrist ref
10
posted on
04/28/2013 1:16:22 PM PDT
by
NYer
(Beware the man of a single book - St. Thomas Aquinas)
To: NYer
I know that Barry believes that the Shroud is authentic, but he has never converted. An unusual case!
To: ex-snook
In the wrist. Nobody nails in the hands, they can’t support the weight of a person, it’d tear through them. They already were looking for this long ago, they know how the Romans crucified and know anatomy. You can see it in the image.
12
posted on
04/28/2013 1:19:29 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: NYer
Science still can’t fully explain things like the ancient Wootz steel.
Therefore, Wootz steel must be holy.
“Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov, Dr. Oleg Sherby and Dr. Jeff Wadsworth and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have all done research, attempting to create steels with similar characteristics to Wootz. However none have had any success so far and the original techniques used to produce Wootz steel in India have been lost for centuries.”
To: sand88
And the repair had to date from the Middle Ages where a report arises about the shroud being repaired. In short, the shroud is easily older than the material introduced in the repaired part!
14
posted on
04/28/2013 1:22:29 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
The answer to that question is simple ~ if God selected a Jew to bring the message, then he’s a Jew ~
15
posted on
04/28/2013 1:24:10 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: James C. Bennett
Show me an ancient stainless steel sword with a photo of Jesus on it and we’ll talk. Otherwise, no go ~ the formula and process seem to have been lost as recently as the 18th century anyway.
16
posted on
04/28/2013 1:29:22 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: muawiyah
The point was something that was made by people in the past is not replicable by modern technology today. Wootz steel is one of those.
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
For a jewish, largely secular scientist averse to Jesus being the messiah, it’s not really that unusual. Many jews can’t believe a god exists for allowing the holocaust to occur.
And of course just because you can’t explain something it doesn’t mean what we believe what happened is true. Just that science hasn’t figured it out yet. This reasoning somehow satisfies them with not having to decide one way or the other. The only faith they have is that someday, somehow, some way, “science will explain it”. Science doesn’t give the “why” to it, though, just the “what”.
18
posted on
04/28/2013 1:34:19 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: James C. Bennett
i'd say there is a slight difference between something that was known to be man made and produced in quantity before the formula was lost and something that is a one-off and cannot be explained...
19
posted on
04/28/2013 1:40:07 PM PDT
by
Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: NYer
Does anyone here have the study explaining why the face looks proportional and non-distorted?
I still think that the explanation involving Leonardo Da Vinci is still the most likely one.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson