1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    19 Apr '15 12:00
    Shroud of Turin Presentation March 2014 with Dr. Wayne Phillips

    YouTube
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 16:16
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Shroud of Turin Presentation March 2014 with Dr. Wayne Phillips

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14y_VIJ2ZbM
    SOLID PROOF TURIN SHROUD IS 1ST CENTURY!

    YouTube
  3. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8572
    20 Apr '15 16:30
    Badgering.
  4. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    20 Apr '15 16:521 edit
    Solid proof it's a fake! More recent proof than above!

    YouTube
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 17:20
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Solid proof it's a fake! More recent proof than above!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0Qdw0Zc-k
    Live interview Barrie M. Schwortz of Shroud.com. regarding the Shroud of Turin.

    YouTube
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '15 17:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Live interview Barrie M. Schwortz of Shroud.com. regarding the Shroud of Turin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSQHnE1WW00
    There is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image. This was from an eye witness. There was zero chance that could have been blood, especially from a body a thousand years in the past and it turned brown over time but it was, by an eye witness, red colored at the time. That and the fact the 'blood' doesn't even penetrate the cloth but only went halfway through because of a treatment given to the cloth to be able to paint on it. So that treatment stopped the so-called blood from fully penetrating the cloth.

    Of course, you are so fully brainwashed by now that no amount of evidence would ever convince you of the fact it is a fraud pure and simple. It was only called a holy relic by that idiot pope, John 6, and then downplayed after that. It was never a relic.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 18:171 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There is that damning note from the 1400's saying he saw the red 'blood' added to the image. This was from an eye witness. There was zero chance that could have been blood, especially from a body a thousand years in the past and it turned brown over time but it was, by an eye witness, red colored at the time. That and the fact the 'blood' doesn't even penet ...[text shortened]... d a holy relic by that idiot pope, John 6, and then downplayed after that. It was never a relic.
    That objection has already been answered and dismissed. You wouldn't know that because you are too biased to objectively consider ALL the evidence. The guy that says it is a fake on that video is biased against it being real from the beginning and is wrong on many points because he is ignorant of ALL of the evidence. 😏
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '15 18:361 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That objection has already been answered and dismissed. You wouldn't know that because you are too biased to objectively consider ALL the evidence. The guy that says it is a fake on that video is biased against it being real from the beginning and is wrong on many points because he is ignorant of ALL of the evidence. 😏
    What about that verse in John that says there was an extra cloth over JC's head? It would have covered any image by the shroud. In the 1300's there was no second cloth like that. Who do you believe? Scripture or the fake from the 1300's?

    John 20:7
    as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    20 Apr '15 18:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Live interview Barrie M. Schwortz of Shroud.com. regarding the Shroud of Turin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSQHnE1WW00
    It's a fake! It's bloody obvious it's a fake.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 20:591 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What about that verse in John that says there was an extra cloth over JC's head? It would have covered any image by the shroud. In the 1300's there was no second cloth like that. Who do you believe? Scripture or the fake from the 1300's?

    John 20:7
    as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
    You apparently did not look at the videos. That objection has already been answered by one that is a Jew and knows the burial customs and was the photographer for the scientifc research team that examined the shroud. They should have been the ones to select the area for the carbon dating instead of allowing someone that didn't know beans about the cloth.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 21:02
    Originally posted by divegeester
    It's a fake! It's bloody obvious it's a fake.
    It is not obvious to the scientists that actually examined the shroud. They say it appears to be the genuine burial linen cloth of Jesus.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '15 21:34
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You apparently did not look at the videos. That objection has already been answered by one that is a Jew and knows the burial customs and was the photographer for the scientifc research team that examined the shroud. They should have been the ones to select the area for the carbon dating instead of allowing someone that didn't know beans about the cloth.
    You didn't answer the question about John, your own scriptures says there were TWO cloths, one over JC's head. So no imprint on the main cloth would have been possible. FAKE.

    O yes, it's a FAKE.

    Oh, did I say it was a FAKE?

    Yep, It's a FAKE

    They even said so in 1390 or so, SEVERAL times. And bright red pigment where the so-called blood is, that was an eye witness jack.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Apr '15 23:213 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You didn't answer the question about John, your own scriptures says there were TWO cloths, one over JC's head. So no imprint on the main cloth would have been possible. FAKE.

    O yes, it's a FAKE.

    Oh, did I say it was a FAKE?

    Yep, It's a FAKE

    They even said so in 1390 or so, SEVERAL times. And bright red pigment where the so-called blood is, that was an eye witness jack.
    The scientist determined there was no paint pigments on the main body of the shroud, so that guy in 1390 was making things up.

    The question was answered about the two cloths. They said the face cloth would have been used to cover the face until Jesus was carried to the tomb. Then the face cloth would be removed before Jesus was wrapped in the burial cloth. That is why John idicated the face cloth or napkin was off by itself, because it was not over the face at the time of the resurrection when the light formed the image on the burial cloth (Shroud). That was Jewish custom.

    If you had watched and listened to the videos I posted, you would not seem so stupid and ignorant like that other guy in that video that made those ridiculous claims.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '15 23:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The scientist determined there was no paint pigments on the main body of the shroud, so that guy in 1390 was making things up.

    The question was answered about the two cloths. They said the face cloth would have been used to cover the face until Jesus was carried to the tomb. Then the face cloth would be removed before Jesus was wrapped in the burial cl ...[text shortened]... seem so stupid and ignorant like that other guy in that video that made those ridiculous claims.
    So you figure the guy in the 12th century was lying. Ok. He witnessed it as bright red. Do you think he was just making stuff up?

    Remember, there was ZERO about the shroud till the 12th century and it was told it was a representation, not the real thing right from the git go.

    You are gullible. More than gullible, you will never believe anything else no matter WHAT is revealed.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    21 Apr '15 00:352 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So you figure the guy in the 12th century was lying. Ok. He witnessed it as bright red. Do you think he was just making stuff up?

    Remember, there was ZERO about the shroud till the 12th century and it was told it was a representation, not the real thing right from the git go.

    You are gullible. More than gullible, you will never believe anything else no matter WHAT is revealed.
    Is the blood on the Shroud real?
    Despite claims by Joe Nickell, a paranormal investigator for the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, that no blood has been found (a bold, unsubstantiated assertion sometimes repeated in the press), blood has been found. The claim is often accompanied by the erroneous statement that all old blood turns black.

    All of the material cited below and their publishing journals are peer reviewed scientific journals.

    It is human blood:

    •Alan Adler, an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products concluded that the blood is real. In collaboration with John Heller, the conclusions that the blood is real was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (also 1980). The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and this was confirmed with spectral analysis.

    •Baima Bollone also found both the heme porphyrin ring of blood and the globulin in flakes of blood from Shroud samples, independently confirming the work of Adler.

    •X-ray-fluorescence spectra showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood.

    •Qualitative microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.

    Various chemical tests by E. J. Jumper, A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik are documented in a peer-reviewed scientific paper "A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin," ACS Advances in Chemistry, Archaeological Chemistry (1984)

    http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Blood/

    Regarding the "suspiciously still-red" red blood, Dr. Adler says that this is what would actually happen to a man who had undergone torture and crucifixion (the actual scientific explanation is complicated and unnecessary here) (cited in Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, New York: Free Press, 1998, pg. 89). Italian scientists have also asserted that the Shroud contains human blood. The claim that the blood is red ocher and vermilion tempera paint has not been "conclusively proved," and is, in fact, contested by numerous scientists and researchers.

    http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-DebateRagesOn.html

    The blood on the Shoud has been identified as type AB blood, the same as the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo.
Back to Top