Shroud of Turin

Lets look at what schafersman had to say here.you also forget to add that he is a confirmed atheist-skeptic who came into this paper with an a priori belief that the shroud was a fake, while Rogers is an agnostic who originally supported the c14 test dates and who even originally said that Benford and Marino were part of the lunatic fringe until his tests showed that Benford and Marino were right.

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.


This has been proven wrong already because the scientists on the STURP team were from all worldviews. Your man schafersman is a liar oops I meant atheist. Sorry for being redundant.

As it is, educated, informed, and rational individuals don't believe the Shroud is authentic, tend to look on the controversy with either disgust or boredom (as I certainly do), and wish to get on with their lives. The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics.

this called adhominem. Not very scientific or objective , unlike Rogers who sticked to science to get the answers.

As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.

Again this is just an opinion and in fact the French reweave has been shown to fool the experts, and it wasn't until Rogers found the and over end splice of cotton and the madder dye , which wasn't found anywhere else on the shroud that he knew that this piece was from a removed newer piece . Unlike Schefarsman who used adhominem attacks as opposed to real scientific work like Rogers did.
Maybe an atheist like you believes that opinion trumps actual science but most normal people don't.

he also writes that Mccrone conclusively refuted STURP by his findings that the blood on the shroud was actually paint.
he is relying on Mccrones work?????
beef do yiu homework instead of acting like the typical atheist that most are.
one more time beef so that you could maybe turn on that 3rd brain cell that operate the region of common sense.

Your man supports Mccrones findings?..
how many peer reviewed papers does Mccrone have on the shroud.
zero, zip, zilch, zippadee do daa.

mccrone was the only one who found this. And when he was rejected in peer review journals what did he do?
well of course he had them published in the magazine microscope in which he is the publisher and owner.
Your boy schafersman supports u peer reviewed magazines over peer reviewed science.

this is the typical atheistic line of reasoning. In order to refute the shroud they must abandon all reason, science, peer review and objective thinking in order to hold onto their silly worldview.

next time beefcake, instead of presenting one side of the story act like a normal non atheist and study both sides like I have .
remember I have studied the shroud for 4 years and unlike u I wasn't afraid to study the cons and pros.
now go back and smoke 10 blunts becaus obviously 2 didn't do u crap.

the beauty of your ignorant responses is that they will lead other, more open minded people sitting on the fence
to take a closer look at the shroud and begin their journey home to God.
big hug for you for making my job easier
God even uses the dogmatic, anti rational atheist for his grand purpose.

The scientific method was born from the desire to understand the universe and reality the way it really is, rather than persist in delusion.

Sickness, the plague... both were associated with whichcraft, magic and the wrath of god... rather than microbial bacteria.

Either way, you get to go to heaven right? We are all going to go to hell for not thinking that your ideas are true... so why argue about it?

Our punishment for not believing is already predetermined from the mind of god anyways. Your attempts are in vain, just as our attempts at convincing you that you are deluded are in vain as well.

The funny thing is that you delude yourself with the idea that your ideas are certainly true without a doubt... yet, if you would like to be honest with yourself, you must accept one fact;

You could be wrong. lol.

When did I say people that don't believe as I do are going to hell?
As a catholic we believe that people who never had the chance to be exposed to the truth in the right way will get more leniency then us believers. I bet you didn't know this .
this requires a little digging into catholic beliefs.
what does being introduced to the truth in the right way mean? Only God knows this fully.

what I do know is that if someone is exposed to it and knows it and doesn't pursue the course to the truth, he's gonna have to answer for it when his day of judgement comes. I'm not a fundamentalist .

the perfect example is Beef looking at one side and not both.
oh and his man schafersman is a geologist who has no chemical expertise criticizing Rogers peer reviewed research.
beef is the kind of person that isn't interested in the truth, he's only interested in holding onto a worldview that has no ultimate meaning, truth or purpose . It's an emotional and not an intellectual worldview.

Zaehet Strife said:

The scientific method was born from the desire to understand the universe and reality the way it really is, rather than persist in delusion.

Sickness, the plague... both were associated with whichcraft, magic and the wrath of god... rather than microbial bacteria.

Either way, you get to go to heaven right? We are all going to go to hell for not thinking that your ideas are true... so why argue about it?

Our punishment for not believing is already predetermined from the mind of god anyways. Your attempts are in vain, just as our attempts at convincing you that you are deluded are in vain as well.

The funny thing is that you delude yourself with the idea that your ideas are certainly true without a doubt... yet, if you would like to be honest with yourself, you must accept one fact;

You could be wrong. lol.

Click to expand...

yes true but it was born out of a Christian worldview in the west.
I'm not saying that there aren't christians that are and were superstitious , but true Christianity is about faith and reason .
please study the work of famed non believer Joseph Needham who reluctantly came to this same conclusion after extensive study as to the reason of why scientific achievment exploded in 16th and 17th century in the west as to stagnating in the east.
part of seeking is admitting that you could be wrong but the evidence is just too strong in favor of me being right.
plus there was a miracle that happened to my grandfather when he was in Egypt . While I admit that this is a subjective experience, if you look hard enough and with an open mind you will find God.

true Christians believe that science and reason go hand in hand , but also admit that without faith means nothing, because without faith there is no love, as love is a choice.

Cool story bro, for real, it's a neat story. You believe in that story, that is really awesome... good for you.

The only reason anyone here has a problem with what you are saying is that you present your ideas as 100% true, when anyone here with a basic understanding of reality knows you are lying. No, it isn't 100% true... no one's supernatural ideas are 100% true because the possibility will always exist that they could be wrong.

You come here claiming certainty of your ideas, and when people ask you questions that conflict with your certainty you react with malice and offense. This behavior is easily demonstrated throughout all the world with thousands of different supernatural doctrines.

If you can't even admit to yourself that your beliefs (or more accurately, the ideas you have that you think are true) have the possibility of being wrong... there is no conversation here to begin with. There is nothing to discuss, nothing to debate, nothing to argue about because you know with certainty that you are right, and we are wrong.

Whatever it is that you believe about supernatural concepts, whether it's buddhism and reincarnation, christianity/catholicism/ judism etc. etc and the concept of heaven and hell... the list goes on and on, the fact of the matter when dealing with any supernatural concept of gods/souls/spirits/ghosts/afterlife is;

that you COULD... be wrong. lol. I think the fear of being wrong about whatever supernatural beliefs people have makes them try to have others believe they way they do, see it the way they do, surround themselves with those people to continuously try to convince themselves that their beliefs are 100% true... when the truth is, lol, you could be wrong. LOL!

guess what... almost all of the people here understand this and accept it. Even Eye, with his hardcore spiritual beliefs understands that they could still be wrong, and that he might die and cease to exist.

If you cannot accept the fact that your supernatural beliefs could be wrong, you are in denial and you are not only deluding yourself, but are attempting to delude others as well.

Wallstreeter43 said:

Lets look at what schafersman had to say here.you also forget to add that he is a confirmed atheist-skeptic who came into this paper with an a priori belief that the shroud was a fake, while Rogers is an agnostic who originally supported the c14 test dates and who even originally said that Benford and Marino were part of the lunatic fringe until his tests showed that Benford and Marino were right.

Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s.


This has been proven wrong already because the scientists on the STURP team were from all worldviews. Your man schafersman is a liar oops I meant atheist. Sorry for being redundant.

As it is, educated, informed, and rational individuals don't believe the Shroud is authentic, tend to look on the controversy with either disgust or boredom (as I certainly do), and wish to get on with their lives. The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics.

this called adhominem. Not very scientific or objective , unlike Rogers who sticked to science to get the answers.

As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.

Again this is just an opinion and in fact the French reweave has been shown to fool the experts, and it wasn't until Rogers found the and over end splice of cotton and the madder dye , which wasn't found anywhere else on the shroud that he knew that this piece was from a removed newer piece . Unlike Schefarsman who used adhominem attacks as opposed to real scientific work like Rogers did.
Maybe an atheist like you believes that opinion trumps actual science but most normal people don't.

he also writes that Mccrone conclusively refuted STURP by his findings that the blood on the shroud was actually paint.
he is relying on Mccrones work?????
beef do yiu homework instead of acting like the typical atheist that most are.
one more time beef so that you could maybe turn on that 3rd brain cell that operate the region of common sense.

Your man supports Mccrones findings?..
how many peer reviewed papers does Mccrone have on the shroud.
zero, zip, zilch, zippadee do daa.

mccrone was the only one who found this. And when he was rejected in peer review journals what did he do?
well of course he had them published in the magazine microscope in which he is the publisher and owner.
Your boy schafersman supports u peer reviewed magazines over peer reviewed science.

this is the typical atheistic line of reasoning. In order to refute the shroud they must abandon all reason, science, peer review and objective thinking in order to hold onto their silly worldview.

next time beefcake, instead of presenting one side of the story act like a normal non atheist and study both sides like I have .
remember I have studied the shroud for 4 years and unlike u I wasn't afraid to study the cons and pros.
now go back and smoke 10 blunts becaus obviously 2 didn't do u crap.

the beauty of your ignorant responses is that they will lead other, more open minded people sitting on the fence
to take a closer look at the shroud and begin their journey home to God.
big hug for you for making my job easier
God even uses the dogmatic, anti rational atheist for his grand purpose.

Click to expand...

You're such a joke. lol

More simplistic theist babbling, I've read all the same types of arguments before and I'm tired of responding to them when the people making them have no will to change even when they're shown just how stupid their line of reasoning is.

You can lead a horse to water....

Ray Rogers findings were based on non-peer reviewed pseudoscience. Fact.

lol i thought the thread title was a bad attempt at trying to say "should i trim". about to come in here like grammer nazi on your ass!

Beefbisquit said:

You're such a joke. lol

More simplistic theist babbling, I've read all the same types of arguments before and I'm tired of responding to them when the people making them have no will to change even when they're shown just how stupid their line of reasoning is.

You can lead a horse to water....

Ray Rogers findings were based on non-peer reviewed pseudoscience. Fact.

Click to expand...

In other words your an atheist and won't be bothered by the facts . Yiu sound exactly like a young earth creationist lollolol
didnt I tell you folks that the shroud of turin will either make the atheist either deny science, logic or reason, or it will cause them to ignore the evidence and stop posting. So much for the vaunted reason, logic and open science of the atheist. Sounds like a worldview based on just emotional denial.
mission accomplished , Houston we have lliftoff
to da moon Alice

Grammar is very important to the Nazi party.

Sounds like a false dilemma, Wallstreet.

Beefbisquit said:

You're such a joke. lol

More simplistic theist babbling, I've read all the same types of arguments before and I'm tired of responding to them when the people making them have no will to change even when they're shown just how stupid their line of reasoning is.

You can lead a horse to water....

Ray Rogers findings were based on non-peer reviewed pseudoscience. Fact.

Click to expand...

again they were accepted into thermochimica acta, a peer reviewed chemical journal.
if your idea of non peer reviewed and pseudo science is a peer reviewed chemical journal, and accepting the chemical critiques from a geologist that is not an expert in chemical analysis no wonder why your still an atheist.
my advice to u is get as far away from the shroud as possible and cling to your silly worldview.
You can lead an atheist to the evidence but you can't force him to think.

NietzscheKeen said:

Grammar is very important to the Nazi party.

Click to expand...

Yes grammar is important to people who want to ignore the facts, besides I'm typing on my ipad mini, not the same as a regular keyboard.
besides Nietzsche , GOD IS ALIVE

Well it looks like I'm giving the atheists here panic attacks, sorry about hitting u with more truth then you can handle lol.
just remember that when u are standing in judgement you can no longer use the excuse of not knowing.
have a great day and remember to order your spiritual steak extra extra extra crispy well done you'll get used to the taste
i just had an atheist sandwich but threw it back up. Must have been past the due date

"The only reason anyone here has a problem with what you are saying is that you present your ideas as 100% true, when anyone here with a basic understanding of reality knows you are lying. No, it isn't 100% true... no one's supernatural ideas are 100% true because the possibility will always exist that they could be wrong.

You come here claiming certainty of your ideas, and when people ask you questions that conflict with your certainty you react with malice and offense. This behavior is easily demonstrated throughout all the world with thousands of different supernatural doctrines.

If you can't even admit to yourself that your supernatural beliefs (or more accurately, the ideas you have that you think are true) have the possibility of being wrong... there is no conversation here to begin with. There is nothing to discuss, nothing to debate, nothing to argue about because you know with certainty that you are right, and we are wrong.

Whatever it is that you believe about supernatural concepts, whether it's buddhism and reincarnation, christianity/catholicism/ judism etc. and the concept of heaven and hell... the list goes on and on, the fact of the matter when dealing with any supernatural concept of gods/souls/spirits/ghosts/afterlife is;

that you COULD... be wrong. lol. I think the fear of being wrong about whatever supernatural beliefs people have makes them try to have others believe they way they do, see it the way they do, surround themselves with those people to continuously try to convince themselves that their beliefs are 100% true... when the truth is, lol, you could be wrong. LOL!

guess what... almost all of the people here understand this and accept it. Even Eye, with his hardcore spiritual beliefs understands that they could still be wrong, and that he might die and cease to exist.

If you cannot accept the fact that your supernatural beliefs could be wrong, you are in denial and you are not only deluding yourself, but are attempting to delude others as well. "








No, you keep trying to tell us that we haven't done our research, but bro, you are missing the point... it is not a scientific fact that the shroud is the original, nor who's body it covered even if it IS the original. You trying to tell us that it's the real thing and it covered a man name Jesus thousands of years ago holds no merit what-so-ever....

(And even if it was the original and it did cover Jesus of Nazareth, how is that even relevant to anything? What is your point?)

It only points out your desperation that the shroud be authentic, and your desperation that your beliefs be 100% true, when everyone here knows that there is fallibility in your claims and supernatural beliefs... lol, you are the only person who is blind to this.

We aren't trying to say you are wrong, nor that your beliefs are wrong... we are merely trying to point out the fact that they COULD be wrong, and that your desperation shows as clear as day when you deny this as a possibility.

Obviously, you have no understanding of what "science, logic or reason" actually is. So what you're saying is that the Shroud will either make an atheist deny his core values or they will see there is no point in talking to someone like yourself. Either way... you some how make a valid point and ... you win??? Is that what you are saying?

"Well it looks like I'm giving the atheists here panic attacks, sorry about hitting u with more truth then you can handle lol."

Clearly, he's delusional. Did it occur to you that we have nothing to panic about... Maybe we are trying to help you to understand. Besides, like I said, we have no reason to panic; we don't identify ourselves with any beliefs as most religious people do. If we are proven wrong, we rejoice and gladly change our beliefs; but we like to be damn sure that we aren't being fooled, given bad information, etc.

That's the difference between science and religion. Science changes if it is wrong, religion tries to make the scriptures fit the findings.

Interview with Joe Nickell, author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin


sfd: When did the scientific investigation of the Shroud really begin?


JN: Well, in the late Sixties and early Seventies, there was a secret commission appointed by the Archbishop of Turin, and there were some tests done in secret. Before that, I guess for the really modern phase, the scientific approach to the Shroud, maybe you could go back as far as 1898 when it was first photographed. And Secondo Pia, when he developed his glass-plate negatives, noticed that on his negative plates there was a positive image - how can this be, darks and lights reversed? That meant that the image on the cloth must be a negative, and so the question was asked, how could a Medieval forger (presumably in the middle of 14th century) produce a perfect photographic negative image on the cloth, with no concept of photography? And the answer is that it's a bogus question - the Shroud is not a perfect photographic negative; it's only a quasi-negative. The hair and beard in the so-called positive image are white, which is the opposite of what they should be in a positive image. So it's a quasi-negative - it's sort of a complicated issue; but it's a quasi-negative and the effect is that if an imprinting technique in which the face and the hair, where they touched the cloth, were darkened. As I say, no burial cloth leaves such picture-like images.


sfd: How realistic is the image with respect to human physiology?


JN: Well, not very...let me back up a little bit. It's hard to get these things in order, but I'm realizing that I need to go back to the beginning and pick up on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John mentions that Jesus was buried in the manner of the Jews, which meant tying and binding. John mentions multiple burial cloths; a separate cloth for the face. This is a discrepancy with the Shroud of Turin. And John's gospel mentions a huge amount - a hundred-pound weight of burial spices; and, of course, that is not found on the Shroud of Turin. So the Shroud is really incompatible; and there is no history of the Shroud for 1,300 years. The Shroud first showed up around 1355 to 1357 under suspicious circumstances and was being used as part of a faith-healing scam. We know this from a later Bishop's report dated 1389 to Pope Clement. The Bishop says that people were being hired to pretend they were sick, and when the Shroud was revealed to them, they would pretend they were cured. So as he put it "they cunningly robbed the pockets of the unsuspecting," and eventually the matter was hushed up, and eventually the Shroud surfaced again. The Bishop tried to put an end to it; people wouldn't listen to him. He appeals to Pope Clement; Pope Clement hears the matter and adjudicates it; he determines the Shroud is just a representation and not the True Shroud. The fact of the matter is that the Bishop's predecessor had actually found the artist and he had confessed. Now, they don't give his name, and of course the pro-Shroud people like to just dismiss this as hearsay, but the fact of its artistry is supported, as we will see, on many fronts. Not only by the lack of history up to that time [the mid-13th century].


sfd: Back to the secret commission...what kind of experts or scientists were called in?


JN: They had a number of experts: technical experts, forensic serologists - a very good team - art experts. They did take threads from blood-stained areas and had them tested, and they were analyzed by internationally known forensic serologists, and they failed every possible test - tests for blood group, or speciation, or microscopic identification of corpuscles - anything you could think of that could be used to test blood, they tried and failed. But they found traces that they thought were red paint. There were attempts to hush this up, of course; this report was pretty much suppressed, and a rebuttal to the report was issued and translated and made freely available to anyone who wanted it. I never did get an original report, but I got a rebuttal report in English.

sfd: We heard a lot about the identification of pollen and that sort of thing, which seems to be consistent with the time and place - the Middle East at the time of the Crucifixion.


JN: We've heard a lot more about the pollen since the Shroud was radio carbon dated (by the way, the carbon dating dated it right at the time of the forger's confession) - so here's yet another powerful blow against the authenticity. And there were three different laboratories that all got the same results. So the pro-Shroud people are getting very, very, very desperate to try to promote the Shroud as genuine. They are in a real quandary on what to do, so they seized on this old report from Max Frei, who claimed to have found pollens particularly from Palestine dated from the time of Jesus...


sfd: And who is Max Frei?


JN: Max Frei was a Swiss criminologist - a sort of jack-of-all-trades criminologist - who made a fool of himself authenticating the notorious Hitler Diaries. Well, when the Shroud of Turin Research Project took the tape samples, Max Frei was there by permission, taking a set of samples himself, and later claimed to have found these pollens. The pollens were very suspicious, as pollen experts quickly pointed out - first of all, they were missing the most obvious pollen you would expect, which would be olive. There's not any! These were more esoteric pollens; they all looked brand-spanking new - they looked like lab specimens. And on the STURP tapes, which were examined last, they found very, very few pollens. So there was a discrepancy - they wondered how Frei had gotten such wonderful results on his tapes, and they were not on a duplicate set of tapes. Eventually, after Frei's death, the tapes were scrutinized, and McCrone (even though he was persona non grata, they knew he was an expert) examined the Frei tapes, and to his consternation, he found that there were very few pollens on Frei's tapes as well. And there were a few tapes that looked rather suspiciously like they had even been doctored. Now, this is all still controversial, but the bottom line is that you cannot take the Shroud and place it in Palestine, even if Frei's results were above suspicion, for all kinds of reasons. And, in fact, the tempera paint and other evidence - the carbon dating - supports this.


sfd: In recent years, since the "debunking" of the Shroud has turned up the heat on the pro-Shroud community, they've now begun to say, maybe it's not the burial cloth of Christ, but it's certainly such a masterpiece of work that it couldn't have been done by anyone other than a master artist. And many have said that they believe, upon analysis, that the Shroud was the work of none other than Leonardo da Vinci.


JN: Yes, they also suggested that because of its supposed of its so-called photographic negative properties, and since Leonardo invented photography, that this was a photographic experiment - perhaps even a portrait of Leonardo as well! There are a few things to say about that. First of all, it's not a true photographic negative. The hair and beard are white in the positive image. Unless Jesus was an albino, there's a problem there. Then there's the minor detail that Leonardo wasn't born until 1452, so that places him about a century after the Shroud was well established in Lirey, France. Besides, the photographic process did not involve tempera paint. So this is just one of many, many, many examples of nonsense. One pro-Shroud person even suggested that before it was the Shroud of Jesus that it was the tablecloth at the Last Supper. The ideas that people come up with, without really reading the literature, is just amazing - and it's amazing how much the media fosters these ideas, when they're just absurd.

sfd: So, where do you think things are going to go from here with the Shroud? Is it just going to be one of these endless debates?


JN: Some of us thought it was clear that the Shroud was proven a forgery and all it needed was the carbon dating to sort it out. It would be one more final confirming detail; and in fact I and others predicted the carbon dating would confirm the forger's confession; and in fact it did almost to the month and day. And clearly the situation now is, in my opinion, that science won the battle and science proved the truth. Science didn't want to prove that the Shroud was not real; science just wanted to prove the truth. It seems to me that, the pro-Shroud people, having lost the scientific battle, are nevertheless inclined to win the propaganda battle. They have many allies, and don't wish to make them angry, and they wish endlessly to keep hope alive, particularly around Easter time with newspaper stories about the Shroud of Turin. And they have about as much credibility as O.J. Simpson's perpetual attempts to find the real killers by searching the golf courses of the world.

It's not really a religious issue. My own review team consisted of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, agnostics - distinguished members like Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist - and we didn't engage in religious bickering because it wasn't a religious issue for us, we only dealt with the science. Historical, artistic, and ideographic issues can be approached from many directions, but the forces of science and scholarship can settle such matters, and they have done so in the case of the Shroud of Turin. This was not an issue to be decided by religious faith, but by science.

Who are you Wallstreeter? What other profile do you use? Is this the only way you could get "someone else" on your side? I just find it strange that your profile was created yesterday and you've only posted on this thread (plus one other post in another).

A good place to see the package deal mentality in action is the Shroud of Turin, a linen strip with the imprint of a person that was widely believed to be the burial shroud of Christ. Radiocarbon dating has revealed it to be medieval in age. Before the dating, some religious believers considered the shroud irrefutable proof of the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection. The interesting thing is that anti-religious skeptics, instead of doing what skeptics ought to do, which is analyze the logical chain piece by piece, reacted with something very much like panic, wholly out of proportion to the evidence.
In order to prove the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection, the Shroud would have to:

• Date authentically from about 30 A.D.
• Have been in Palestine in 30 A. D.
• Bear an image that authentically dates from 30 A. D. (it could have been created later)
• Bear the imprint of a real person (as opposed to an artificial image)
• Bear the imprint of a person who was actually crucified (as opposed to simulating the effects or having marks from some other cause)
• Bear the imprint of Christ as opposed to anyone else
• No longer contain a body because of a supernatural resurrection, as opposed to the body being removed

Break any link, and the Shroud no longer makes its case. So, even if the shroud is the actual burial shroud of Christ, all we have is a historical relic connected to a famous person. The most critical link, the final one, is not proven. The physical evidence is equally consistent with resurrection or with the body being removed. I've seen a hair claimed to be from the beard of Mohammed, but that doesn't prove he received messages from Gabriel. However, note that discrediting the relics doesn't disprove the supernatural claims, merely one line of evidence. If the hair is actually someone else's, it doesn't disprove Mohammed's claims, merely that someone misrepresented a hair. If the shroud is a fake, it proves only that some devout believer created a forgery. Proving that one bridge is out doesn't prove that all routes are impassible.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Abelard for Today.HTM

These persistent attacks against people you label 'atheists' don't help your argument. Most atheists I know would be very excited to see demonstrable evidence of a deity. Atheists are only disbelievers, they are not calling for a doctrine of non-belief or search for evidence against a god or gods. They merely don't buy what the theist is selling. Attacking people that accept the general consensus that the shroud is a medieval piece of art (even claiming forgery requires some evidence) because you think they are atheists with some despicable world-view, is not going to persuade anyone to see your evidence any differently but may in fact turn a neutral party against you due to your arrogant and hostile attitude. A good scientists doesn't need to throw ads hominem toward the skeptics. the pseudoscientist looks only for evidence that supports his theory. Real scientists look for evidence against their theories as well. Even if they want desperately to see their theories accepted, they know full well that their opponents will be looking for weak spots; better to anticipate criticism or even junk a cherished belief rather than be blown out of the water by somebody else. The pseudoscientist not only looks only for confirmation, but he often takes a very broad view of confirmation. You actions and responses are that of a pseudoscientist. You claim to have no real reason to be on this site as you originally made some negative comment about cannabis. I can only conclude that you are an anti-intellectual religionist with an agenda to attempt to dismiss criticisms of shroud authenticity, and not interested in being reasonable or rational about the subject. This is nothing more than proselytizing, something that is not welcome.

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." ~ Carl Sagan

Heisenberg, My posts have already been proven nickell to be a liar and a non expert and almost all scientist in the field of Sinology have proven him wrong. The atheists then posted about another atheist skeptic schafersman who has no degree in chemistry , is critiquing Rogers who is an expert chemist himself.

ill let the open minded and reasonable people here decide . Do they trust the nonpeer reviewed opinion of an atheist geologist about chemical analysis, joe nickell who has not even a 2 year community college science degree, Walter Mccrone who couldn't get his paper passed peer review, or Ray Rogers whose peer reviewed work make these atheists look like idiots, who himself is an agnostic who stated on video that he is a man of science that doesn't believe in miracles and who is an expert in the very area that he submitted his peer reviewed paper on.
i thought that atheists are pro science and claim to value reason so much.
it seems to me that beef and his little cheer leaders don't care about science or God and will do anything, including abandoning science reason and logic to convince us that God doesn't exist.

atheism is an emotional worldview not an intellectual one and I proved it in this thread.
Mission aaccomplished god bless you all