>>13651916
>>13651916
>not risking anything
its not about risk, but "anonymous" prevents dishonest people from using dishonest means "doxing"
>lets lay down some ground rules
because 99.99% of people are too stupid to understand I'm talking about actual artifacts, not books written from other books, the oldest of which is 1100AD or later.
>"dated paleographically" means someone DID do Hard Sci
You misunderstand. It means there is NO published Hard Science, and ALL they are presenting is "paleographically" which I've addressed in this thread….real scientists rightly scoff at "paleographically" claims without real science, since making "ye Olde" type writing seems to be a universal human hobby.
Present your best artifacts. :)
Shroud of Turin has many claims that seem valid, as far as dating, but just as many that debunk it. From my viewpoint:
1)It could be close to correct age.
2)It could be much newer.
3)Carbon-14 is basically unless for anything that has been well handled, and barely useful for something that has been somehow preserved and sealed since death.
4)Its not a shroud, its a 2D image, AKA painting or drawing, or "projection" of some sort.
5)Claims its blood/wounds are some amazing match to Bible haven't been reverse engineered by disinterested CIS experts. I'd like to tell Tokyo PD detectives to, given certain wounds, show me what a "shroud" or painting, would look like.
But we are still left with the fact that all these supposed artifacts are very dubious, "lonely" and have no good origin. Real cultures/religions have tons of stuff being dung out of the ground Post too long. Click here to view the full text.