So you've got a small penis then? Ironic considering that you're one of the biggest dicks that I know!
Yes I have.Now,if you had the manners to read the link I posted you might understand.THEY FOUND THE PIECE OF CLOTH THEY TESTED WAS SOWN ON AT A LATER DATE.FAC ****ing T.
You miss the point.I don't give a **** if this shoud belongs to John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart. The test was wrong FACT.
Irishgreen - I am a catholic. I do understand what you have been trying to say. I do like to try to keep an open mind about most things - but I can see that it is easy to be sceptical about the authenticity of the age of the shroud - when the catholic church will not permit new tests - especially if it can claim that the original test was flawed. I'm afraid that this attitude does the catholic church no favours.
They have told no lies they have never authenticated the shoud.Wise up man,all I said was there methods were wrong FACT. As proven
forgive my ignorance. I was led to believe that no new tests were to be approved - on the grounds that the cloth is in too delicate a condition. I doubt that this is the case and would welcome tests which followed correct protocol. Were they done? Results ?
From the Vatican: The Catholic Church continues to hold that the shroud is not authentic, but the faithful are allowed to venerate it as a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection. Anyone ****in home?????????????????
Like I said I try to keep an open mind. On a personal basis I have always reserved judgement about the shroud. However there are other aspects about my belief of my faith that permits me to believe as I do. I have no desire to involve myself in a religious debate - they tend to be futile and can make enemies of otherwise good friends. <evenifyouhadmethinkingyouwantedtobytowin>
@Always I don't give one mate but the test were contaminated FACT. I'm neither Catholic,protestant,Muslim or Hindu but those tests were contaminated FACT.
The Turin Shroud's a weird one. The original carbon dating showed it to be some time around 1200 AD (ish). However, more visual tests (X-rays and the like) were carried out on it recently, which showed that the pieces tested (only allowed to be from the outermost parts of the cloth, nowhere near the supposed image of Christ) were much newer than the central parts, and of a different material. The main theory for this is that it was repaired in the middle ages, with outer bits woven in so it looked newer. The Church won't let anyone check the inner pieces, because the carbon dating destroys parts of what could be an immensely sacred image. Until that's allowed, nobody can know for sure if it's real or fake. However, trying to reproduce it is nearly impossible. The only way scientists have been able to make anything close to it has been with advanced UV radiation technology, which would have been impossible in the middle ages. If it is a fake, how the hell did they make it?
