The coverup lasted 23 years. Long enough for affected parties to die off or retire. Only discovered through a FOIR to force the original data to be released. I knew because I read Ray Roger's paper, and followed the case to draw it to Ray's attention. Of course, he didn't believe them. Not until he revisited the original source material. Meanwhile, naysayers had a field day quoting those findings from 1988. And the three men who presented the dates to the world knew the data and sampling were flawed and skewed. And STILL sat there defending it. Within a year, all three received very generous grants for research. £2M a piece. Easily verified with a little research. Based on the evaluations done in 2018, not only did Arizona not test tbe A1 sample, as previously declared, tbey didn't even have it, and didn't own up until challenged. So much for "following where the science leads".
I grow and weave linen. Even I knew if you sampled a patch repair, you are not sampling the shroud but the patch. Duh. Anyone with basic textile knowledge would know that. Spinning and weaving gets one close up to these things rather than mere book learned people
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*
Have you ever made a "patch repair" that was completely invisible? Did you hand-spin your linen threads and did you make sure that no cotten fibers entered into that spinning process? No one who has actually examined the Shroud in person has made the claim that any undocumented repairs exist on that cloth.
You-Tube A.I. deletes comments that have links. Robert Rucker's papers are not hard to find and have the best hypothesis for the Shroud's radiocarbon readings. See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption," Rucker, 2020.
The problem with the newer test is that it used a thread sample near the same area where the C-14 strip was taken. If we are to believe Ray Rogers that the C-14 sample had cotton in it and thus the C-14 test pieces were taken from an area where the Poor Clair Nuns added a "side-strip" in the 15th century, then either both the C-14 and this newer test can not be representative of the entire Shroud. In the alternative, there was never a side-strip sewn on by the Poor Clair Nuns in the 15th century. Any comments would be appreciated.
See Chapter 9 in TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015. You should not believe (with all due respect) what the late Ray Rodgers said and wrote about the Shroud.
I know. Rogers believed the image was caused by some chemical process that he could not explain. Antonacci goes along with the neutron flux radiation process. I agree with Antonacci. @@jeffreyerwin3665
@@markomus1 Textile scientist Gabriel Vial supervised the cutting of the 1988 radiocarbon sample and has repeatedly stated that the sample was an integral part of the Shroud and not a patch.
No idea of the truth of this statement, but I did see a video a few years ago of one of the scientists who did the 1988 Carbon dating test. He stated that the group knew fully that the strands they took were probably from a patch, and this was done purposefully to destroy people's faith in the artifact.
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*
Ok, but This test was widely publicized by the world press as proof that the shroud was a fake. But the scientific refutation of the test never received such wide coverage.
@@frontenac5083 You must have missed that it has been proven that the samples taken were from a repaired section of the Shroud - a section that happened to have been repaired in the middle-ages (!); therefor, new samples need to be taken and tested.
@@billjohnson9472 you’d need to back up that assertion. If you watched the full interview there’s plenty of science out now which corroborates that the shroud existed in the 1st century and the carbon fiber date done previously has been throughly debunked
@@brianfarley926 the carbon data wasn't debunked, just a lot of excuses were made for the results. suppose it was made in the 1st century. there is still no evidence of whose image it is; none connecting it with any particular person.
Very well said! Glad to see there are some people with a clue willing to speak up to defend science and the truth against lies ans conspiracy theories!
There is no point of retesting the shroud. If you people don't like the answer you just ignore it or come up with hypotheticals that makes the test invalid
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*@@zpvnrt
Why the textile experts choose the particular corner that they did to cut a sample from the Shroud is not "unknown." After a careful examination, they determined that they characteristics of the corner in question were consistent with the rest of the cloth. Since the Shroud had been cut there before, they choose the corner on that basis.
No but why didn't they just do the non controversial 7 point samples they were suppose to do? Did u miss the part where recent studies show that the part of the cloth used contained other later material? These "experts" seem dodgy.
@@ashleymulenga9115 One sample was all that was needed. The "later" material hypothesis has been falsified. See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption,' Rucker, 2020.
@@ashleymulenga9115 Their are no "recent studies" of the Shroud that indicate that the 1988 radiocarbon sample contained later material. No person who has actually examined the Shroud in person ever reported finding any undocumented repair.
The information ppresented in this video is not correct. Many Shroud scholars, including the foremost Shroud textile expert, say that the 1988 Shroud sample was a part of the original cloth and that it did not have any repair or reweaving threads in it. The "secret repair" hypothesis has been falsified several times over. The most dramatic evidence against it is that the Sudarium has been dated by radiocarbon to the eight century three times using different samples. The secret repair hypothesis fails to explain this anomaly, while the neutron absorption hypothesis accounts for it. See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption," Rucker, 2020. While I thank the Augustine Institute for presenting this video, I must say that it is very out of date for a 2023 presentation on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.
So Robert A. Rucker claims there are multiple evidence for the shroud being way older, than the result of the RC tests. I'm just browsing through his papers - is he claiming the carbon dating was inaccurate, because the body of the person covered by the cloth emitted a flux of neutrons, that altered the C12/C14 ratio?
Quran says Allah is “Al-Ahad”(one/indivisible).Deductively, It is impossible for perfection to have parts. The old/new testament textually scream oneness of Allah. So, then why believe in trinity and associate two imaginary parts to Allah(one/indivisible/self-sufficient/all-loving)?How could your love be undivided and only for Allah(the most Exalted) when there are two other equally unique/perfect entities?
In the Quran Allah sends his spirit before Mary which appears as a man. This spirit is the one which enters mary amd creates the life of Jesus. Meanwhile the same quran preaches only Allah can create life and there is no separate entity equal to Allah who can do this. Jesus is also said to create a bird from clay and breathe life into it, just like the way Allah did with Adam. He is said to pardon sins and will even come to resurrect the dead. This mere prophet is the one now performing acts equal to Allah?🤣
@@ashleymulenga9115 Quran says:”Allah, there is no deity worthy of worship except he”.the Necessary existence, sustainer of contingent existence”. Now, Allah(one/indivisible) is perfect/infinite. Entire mankind/universe( including prophets muhammad and Jesus) can exist or not exist. Entire mankind can become the best worshipper or worse sinners, Allah still remains perfect. Perfection by definition cannot be added to or subtracted from. Allah is perfect therefore unchanging. Now, it is the Angel Gabriel that blew into Mary(peace be upon her) spirit of Allah(the most exalted) by the complete authorization from Allah.Where does it say in Quran/Hadith that Angel Gabriel has the capability of giving life/consciousness? Now, Angel Gabriel is an agent of Allah and only acts according to command of Allah. According to Islam, Angel Gabriel is responsible for blowing the”spirit” into every child that is born. Again, Allah is perfect and all imperfect/limited entities such as prophets and angels completely depend upon Allah for every ounce of existence they have.
@@ashleymulenga9115 Islam is built upon two sources: Quran and Hadith. Where does it say in Quran/Hadith that Jesus can pardon sins? Jesus(peace be upon him)is a slave of Allah and everything he does in miracles such as blowing life into bird is done by authorization from Allah. Allah(the most exalted)is the sole power in the cosmos and only deity worthy of worship.
@@christendomempire5657 this is an elaboration to my initial comment: Quran (only scripture with 100% accuracy/preservation) says Allah is “Al-Ahad”(one/indivisible).Philosophically, It is impossible for 3 distinct perfections to exist simultaneously. Father (Perfection 1/distinct1) =Son (Perfection 2/distinct2)=idolatry.This is due to addition of two extra perfections that are Co-equal/Co-eternal&distinct with Allah(the most Exalted). Not just the Quran, but also the old/New Testament textually establish tauheed(monotheism). So, then why believe in trinity and associate two imaginary parts to Allah(one/indivisible/Self-Sufficient/All-Loving)? How could your love/worship be undivided/exclusive for Allah(the most Exalted) when there are two other equally unique/perfect entities to adore? The verses of bible used by trinitarians are extremely vague and require hard interpretation to extract the understanding that Father/Son/Holy Ghost are Co-equal/Co-Eternal&distinct.
The coverup lasted 23 years. Long enough for affected parties to die off or retire. Only discovered through a FOIR to force the original data to be released. I knew because I read Ray Roger's paper, and followed the case to draw it to Ray's attention. Of course, he didn't believe them. Not until he revisited the original source material. Meanwhile, naysayers had a field day quoting those findings from 1988. And the three men who presented the dates to the world knew the data and sampling were flawed and skewed. And STILL sat there defending it. Within a year, all three received very generous grants for research. £2M a piece. Easily verified with a little research. Based on the evaluations done in 2018, not only did Arizona not test tbe A1 sample, as previously declared, tbey didn't even have it, and didn't own up until challenged. So much for "following where the science leads".
@voiceofreason162 - God doesn't exist. Get over it.
@endwigast5212 That non-existent God came aboard an Aircraft carrier at sea and saved my life 10th March 1983. outside Lisbon, Portugal. Get over it.
@@voiceofreason162 Wasn't God. It was Superman, but he moved so fast when rescuing you that you couldn't see him - he was a blur to your eyes.
I love when science is used for God’s glory!
I grow and weave linen. Even I knew if you sampled a patch repair, you are not sampling the shroud but the patch. Duh. Anyone with basic textile knowledge would know that. Spinning and weaving gets one close up to these things rather than mere book learned people
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*
Have you ever made a "patch repair" that was completely invisible? Did you hand-spin your linen threads and did you make sure that no cotten fibers entered into that spinning process? No one who has actually examined the Shroud in person has made the claim that any undocumented repairs exist on that cloth.
At this point, if you are still relying on the 1988 carbon 14 testing, you are about as reasonable as a flat-earther.
would be nice to get links to all this debunking
You-Tube A.I. deletes comments that have links. Robert Rucker's papers are not hard to find and have the best hypothesis for the Shroud's radiocarbon readings.
See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption," Rucker, 2020.
The problem with the newer test is that it used a thread sample near the same area where the C-14 strip was taken. If we are to believe Ray Rogers that the C-14 sample had cotton in it and thus the C-14 test pieces were taken from an area where the Poor Clair Nuns added a "side-strip" in the 15th century, then either both the C-14 and this newer test can not be representative of the entire Shroud. In the alternative, there was never a side-strip sewn on by the Poor Clair Nuns in the 15th century. Any comments would be appreciated.
See Chapter 9 in TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015. You should not believe (with all due respect) what the late Ray Rodgers said and wrote about the Shroud.
I know. Rogers believed the image was caused by some chemical process that he could not explain. Antonacci goes along with the neutron flux radiation process. I agree with Antonacci. @@jeffreyerwin3665
Yeah...and I bet they didn't take the time to look carefully enough to make sure it was LINEN and not cotton in their test. 🙄
@@markomus1 Textile scientist Gabriel Vial supervised the cutting of the 1988 radiocarbon sample and has repeatedly stated that the sample was an integral part of the Shroud and not a patch.
@@jeffreyerwin3665 So reassuring.
so basically they scrambled to find excuses for the results of the dating process.
Actually, The British Museum "scambled" to force the Shroud's disparate C-14 data into a reliable date.
No idea of the truth of this statement, but I did see a video a few years ago of one of the scientists who did the 1988 Carbon dating test. He stated that the group knew fully that the strands they took were probably from a patch, and this was done purposefully to destroy people's faith in the artifact.
yes, as always it must be a conspiracy. "hiding the truth", right.
🤡🤡🤡
This literally needs to go viral like that crap carbon test
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*
Stop saying literally
I didnt know that about the 88 test. Thank you for that.
Ok, but This test was widely publicized by the world press as proof that the shroud was a fake. But the scientific refutation of the test never received such wide coverage.
Has there been any new testing of fabric from the shroud?
No - nor will there be
Why? The first one already showed it's a medieval fake.
@@zpvnrt 🤡🤡🤡
@@frontenac5083 You must not be keeping up.
@@frontenac5083 You must have missed that it has been proven that the samples taken were from a repaired section of the Shroud - a section that happened to have been repaired in the middle-ages (!); therefor, new samples need to be taken and tested.
So I wasted nearly 30quid on the book The Shroud Of Turin 😢
So the shroud has been soiled by liars and certainly profanated by servant of the light
Why did the chose that place when they must have known?
I think you already know the answer to that
Confirmation bias
because the speaker is making up reasons to ignore the scientific results. that is, he is making it up.
@@billjohnson9472 you’d need to back up that assertion. If you watched the full interview there’s plenty of science out now which corroborates that the shroud existed in the 1st century and the carbon fiber date done previously has been throughly debunked
@@brianfarley926 the carbon data wasn't debunked, just a lot of excuses were made for the results.
suppose it was made in the 1st century. there is still no evidence of whose image it is; none connecting it with any particular person.
This debunk that's been debunked, the samples were carefully choosen to ensure accuracy. Fact check if you want.
Very well said!
Glad to see there are some people with a clue willing to speak up to defend science and the truth against lies ans conspiracy theories!
*LIES*
Yes. All being told by you it seems.
Were the 1988 scientists really that negligent? Is this believable?
There is no point of retesting the shroud. If you people don't like the answer you just ignore it or come up with hypotheticals that makes the test invalid
A scientist created a photographic negative, the caption says "How to fake a Shroud of Turin" in Smithsonian channel
So have they tested a sample from an original part of it?
No - nor will they
Yes. That's all they ever did.
*The carbon 14 test has NOT been "debunked". What has been debunked is the lie that the test wasn't properly conducted. The shroud IS a medieval forgery, whether you like it or not. Move on.*@@zpvnrt
Why the textile experts choose the particular corner that they did to cut a sample from the Shroud is not "unknown." After a careful examination, they determined that they characteristics of the corner in question were consistent with the rest of the cloth. Since the Shroud had been cut there before, they choose the corner on that basis.
No but why didn't they just do the non controversial 7 point samples they were suppose to do? Did u miss the part where recent studies show that the part of the cloth used contained other later material? These "experts" seem dodgy.
@@ashleymulenga9115 One sample was all that was needed. The "later" material hypothesis has been falsified.
See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption,' Rucker, 2020.
@@ashleymulenga9115 Their are no "recent studies" of the Shroud that indicate that the 1988 radiocarbon sample contained later material. No person who has actually examined the Shroud in person ever reported finding any undocumented repair.
Ok, but is not a matter os believe or not believe. There’s a objective truth, cientific truth about this infamous test.
Test it again then. Wtf lol
Why? All of those with a brain know that it's not a fake. We need no more testing done on the Holy Shroud.
The information ppresented in this video is not correct. Many Shroud scholars, including the foremost Shroud textile expert, say that the 1988 Shroud sample was a part of the original cloth and that it did not have any repair or reweaving threads in it. The "secret repair" hypothesis has been falsified several times over. The most dramatic evidence against it is that the Sudarium has been dated by radiocarbon to the eight century three times using different samples. The secret repair hypothesis fails to explain this anomaly, while the neutron absorption hypothesis accounts for it. See: "The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption," Rucker, 2020.
While I thank the Augustine Institute for presenting this video, I must say that it is very out of date for a 2023 presentation on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.
So Robert A. Rucker claims there are multiple evidence for the shroud being way older, than the result of the RC tests. I'm just browsing through his papers - is he claiming the carbon dating was inaccurate, because the body of the person covered by the cloth emitted a flux of neutrons, that altered the C12/C14 ratio?
🌹🙏🏽🙏🙏🏿🙏🏻🌹🇺🇸
I olso
Quran says Allah is “Al-Ahad”(one/indivisible).Deductively, It is impossible for perfection to have parts. The old/new testament textually scream oneness of Allah. So, then why believe in trinity and associate two imaginary parts to Allah(one/indivisible/self-sufficient/all-loving)?How could your love be undivided and only for Allah(the most Exalted) when there are two other equally unique/perfect entities?
You misunderstand the Holy Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are not parts but persons united in one Nature.
In the Quran Allah sends his spirit before Mary which appears as a man. This spirit is the one which enters mary amd creates the life of Jesus. Meanwhile the same quran preaches only Allah can create life and there is no separate entity equal to Allah who can do this. Jesus is also said to create a bird from clay and breathe life into it, just like the way Allah did with Adam. He is said to pardon sins and will even come to resurrect the dead. This mere prophet is the one now performing acts equal to Allah?🤣
@@ashleymulenga9115 Quran says:”Allah, there is no deity worthy of worship except he”.the Necessary existence, sustainer of contingent existence”. Now, Allah(one/indivisible) is perfect/infinite. Entire mankind/universe( including prophets muhammad and Jesus) can exist or not exist. Entire mankind can become the best worshipper or worse sinners, Allah still remains perfect. Perfection by definition cannot be added to or subtracted from. Allah is perfect therefore unchanging. Now, it is the Angel Gabriel that blew into Mary(peace be upon her) spirit of Allah(the most exalted) by the complete authorization from Allah.Where does it say in Quran/Hadith that Angel Gabriel has the capability of giving life/consciousness? Now, Angel Gabriel is an agent of Allah and only acts according to command of Allah. According to Islam, Angel Gabriel is responsible for blowing the”spirit” into every child that is born. Again, Allah is perfect and all imperfect/limited entities such as prophets and angels completely depend upon Allah for every ounce of existence they have.
@@ashleymulenga9115 Islam is built upon two sources: Quran and Hadith. Where does it say in Quran/Hadith that Jesus can pardon sins? Jesus(peace be upon him)is a slave of Allah and everything he does in miracles such as blowing life into bird is done by authorization from Allah. Allah(the most exalted)is the sole power in the cosmos and only deity worthy of worship.
@@christendomempire5657 this is an elaboration to my initial comment:
Quran (only scripture with 100% accuracy/preservation) says Allah is “Al-Ahad”(one/indivisible).Philosophically, It is impossible for 3 distinct perfections to exist simultaneously. Father (Perfection 1/distinct1) =Son (Perfection 2/distinct2)=idolatry.This is due to addition of two extra perfections that are Co-equal/Co-eternal&distinct with Allah(the most Exalted). Not just the Quran, but also the old/New Testament textually establish tauheed(monotheism). So, then why believe in trinity and associate two imaginary parts to Allah(one/indivisible/Self-Sufficient/All-Loving)? How could your love/worship be undivided/exclusive for Allah(the most Exalted) when there are two other equally unique/perfect entities to adore? The verses of bible used by trinitarians are extremely vague and require hard interpretation to extract the understanding that Father/Son/Holy Ghost are Co-equal/Co-Eternal&distinct.