Sorry if I seemed rude. You started off on the the blood being some type of pigment, and the C-14 date as making it an obvious fraud. I guess I was a little irritated that you had no basis but heresay for these claims. As you will see in other posts, the shroud underwent an extensive study in 1978. 50 scientists performed a battery of tests and found no pigments. The blood stains were verified to be real, and the image was shown not to be scorch marks or body oils. In fact, the only explanation for the image was that it might be from some type of radiation source, and they couldn't exactly explain that either. All this information is readily available and many research papers have been done. When the C-14 test was done in 1988, it showed an age of about 728 years, and most people dropped the issue as unimportant. But that still did not explain the image. In fact, the mystery of the shroud seems to deepen with time. It was discovered that iradiating the image with polarized light produced skeletal features. More recent developments in the C-14 testing of textiles has also put some doubt on the validity of the original test due to bacterial contamination.
( Old cloth develops a coating of accumulated bacteria that is not easy to clean off, which affects the C-14 test.)
So, what does it prove? It doesn't prove that Jesus lived or anything like that. I think it speaks quite eloquently for itself. The joke is on us! Paul
Lee McGiffen wrote:
> Paul Cochrane wrote:
> > Gosh Lee,
> > I am rather shocked that you so quickly brush off
> > scientific facts. But it is a free land and you can believe
> > whatever you want.
> Can you be more explicit? What specific scientific facts have
> I brushed off?
> > Are you a member of the flat earth society?
> No, are you?