tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post534217947691095082..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-61190118281468906142016-05-21T11:42:16.075+08:002016-05-21T11:42:16.075+08:00Bob
>Hello Stephen this is bippy123. I know th...Bob<br /><br />>Hello Stephen this is bippy123. I know that I haven't posted here in a long time . The reason why is that I lost my house last year and I'm living in my car and I'm working 2 jobs to try to get my life together.<br /><br />Sorry to hear that. I will pray for you that you do get your life together.<br /><br />>i also can't seem to change this screen name because I'm posting from my cell phone and not a tablet anymore .<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />>I wanted to give you a heads up on a shroud debate on the uk premier Christian radio between Hugh farey and Alan whanger.<br /><a href="https://goo.gl/8dha4j" rel="nofollow">https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101?mt=2&i=339002487</a><br /><br />>I was wondering if you could do a post on it . It seems like farey kept banging home that whanger dorsnt want to deal with the fact that if there was a research that there would need 2/3 Of the sample taken would have to be not original for it to date from the 13th or 14th century<br /><br />Sorry, but Farey is right on that. See my "<a href="http://goo.gl/p4A29a" rel="nofollow">Conventional explanations of the discrepancy <i>all</i> fail</a>" in my "<a href="http://goo.gl/t1YRqH" rel="nofollow">The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1</a>."<br /><br />The ONLY viable explanation of why the authentic 1st century Shroud had radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be ~30 years before the Shroud <a href="https://goo.gl/FS0XBO" rel="nofollow">first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355</a>, was because the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon process was hacked. Allegedly by Arizona laboratory physicist <a href="https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/16617/16293" rel="nofollow">Timothy W. Linick</a>, aided by German hacker <a href="http://goo.gl/oPLPCx" rel="nofollow">Karl Koch</a> on behalf of the KGB.<br /><br />See my series, "<a href="http://goo.gl/t1YRqH" rel="nofollow">The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking</a>."<br /><br />The Shroud pro-authenticity community is going to continue to lose this debate with anti-authenticists by claiming: "the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud was shifted ~13 centuries into the future, by carbon contamination/bioplastic coating/invisible repair/neutron flux (take your pick!), to 1325 which `just happened' to be ~30 years before 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France; until it adopts the TRUE explanation that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking. <br /><br />>Again Stephen sorry I have been gone so long but I felt that I needed to make this post as Hugh just started posting on our shroud thread on the God and science forum<br /><br />Farey will win until you argue for my hacking explanation. Although it might sound strange, it fits all the facts, unlike any other explanation of why the 1st century Shroud had a 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date.<br /><br />Remember "... when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, <i>however improbable</i>, must be the truth ..." (Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of the Four," in "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes," Penguin: London, p.42, emphasis original).<br /><br />You can tell Farey that he is welcome to comment on my hacking theory on my blog, but to date he has not done so. <br /><br />>God bless<br />Bippy123<br /><br />And you.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-12746900056649524132016-05-21T00:50:53.649+08:002016-05-21T00:50:53.649+08:00Hello Stephen this is bippy123. I know that I have...Hello Stephen this is bippy123. I know that I haven't posted here in a long time . The reason why is that I lost my house last year and I'm living in my car and I'm working 2 jobs to try to get my life together .i also can't seem to change this screen name because I'm posting from my cell phone and not a tablet anymore .<br /><br /><br />I wanted to give you a heads up on a shroud debate on the uk premier Christian radio between Hugh farey and Alan whanger.<br />https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101?mt=2&i=339002487<br /><br />I was wondering if you could do a post on it . It seems like farey kept banging home that whanger dorsnt want to deal with the fact that if there was a research that there would need 2/3 <br />Of the sample taken would have to be not original for it to date from the 13th or 14th century <br /><br />Again Stephen sorry I have been gone so long but I felt that I needed to make this post as Hugh just started posting on our shroud thread on the God and science forum <br />God bless <br />Bippy123<br /><br /><br /><br />bob smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10037588881657801038noreply@blogger.com