Jump to content

Talk:Shroud of Turin Research Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randy Kryn (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 7 February 2023 (→Nickell statement: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Incomplete

This is very incomplete. It lacks the results of the first and second Carbon-14 dating. The first one was faulty and many mocked and criticized those finding fault and calling for a second test. This continued for some time until Ray Rogers wrote an additional peer-reviewed paper showing why the first tests were faulty. He died from cancer before the second carbon-14 tests proved that him right.

This is the stuff of great suspense movies.

Interestingly, Rogers only did the tests that provided the foundation for his final peer-reviewed paper that brought about the new carbon-14 tests because he was angry at the temerity of Joe Marino and Sue Benford to challenge the carbon-14 test results! (How dare common, uneducated non-scientists challenge the work of educated scientists on the basis of nothing but suspicion!) LOL He was amazed to find out they were right! No significant person has written about the foundation of the confidence of those claiming the original carbon-14 dating was faulty EVEN though they were ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

Numerous people speculated that the faulty carbon-14 tests were based on a conspiracy to make the shroud appear to be a fake or a forgery. That also would make an interesting mystery and suspense movie even though I think it wrong.

When Ray Rogers found about the complaints of Benford and Marino, he fussed to Barrie Schwartz that "I can prove them wrong in five minutes!" To which, Barry said, "Well, Ray, go ahead and do it." Ray got out the pieces of the shroud fragments that he had left and started examining them and called Barrie back the same afternoon and said, "They were right!"

That got the ball rolling for the new Carbon-14 tests that proved that the Shroud of Turin was indeed from the time of Jesus.

Now, why doesn't this article accurately represent the work of the STURP team and the true scientific results of their work which can be found on the official pages of the STURP team under the aegis of Barrie Schwartz? And here: theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

And why aren't the many other Wikipedia pages that don't have the final results on them ALSO corrected? This information is several years old.

Because the bulk of the editors on Wikipedia don't like the finding?71.2.183.232 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickell statement

The Joe Nickell statement may have a major problem. He claims STURP's leaders served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, but the Guild website's search feature doesn't back this up. I'm not saying that Nickell's statement is false, just that I'm not finding backup and that his linked article includes no names of who he claims are STURP's leaders. Please, others have a look, and if his statement is incorrect then that sentence either should be removed as inaccurate or at least a POV tag added. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shroud_of_Turin_Research_Project&oldid=1138008659"