Thread: Video the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image

Video document testifying that the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image:http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/shroudturinvideo.html

According to Wikipedia:

"The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers. Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis."

(cf. Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

If you have truly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image,
you might as well publish your findings in a journal (instead of spreading them on YouTube).

It's materials are confirmed by several labs to be from the 13th century--that already ruled out it being authentic--it is settled.

Irrational people will keep the so called arguments going ad naeuseam because they simply refuse to accept the evidence.

MODERATOR NOTE : Tentatively moved to the Religion section.

Originally Posted by PetriFB

Video document testifying that the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image:http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/shroudturinvideo.html

I watched a documentary saying it is. which is correct?

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by PetriFB

Video document testifying that the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image:http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/shroudturinvideo.html

I watched a documentary saying it is. which is correct?

Radiocarbon dating has shown that it is medieval (Damon, P.E. et al., 1989).
Thus I would not go as far as calling the Shroud of Turin as authentic.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by PetriFB

Video document testifying that the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image:http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/shroudturinvideo.html

I watched a documentary saying it is. which is correct?

Radiocarbon dating has shown that it is medieval (Damon, P.E. et al., 1989).
Thus I would not go as far as calling the Shroud of Turin as authentic.

what was tested? the dried blood, the shroud, particles on the shroud?

reference 3 gave me this:
http://chemport.cas.org/cgi-bin/sdcg...620afb0c9adab5

"The performance of 6 labs., 4 accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS) and 2 small gas-counter labs., was compared in dating 100-mg samples of textiles from ancient Egypt and Peru."

most references are unattainable (by me).

Originally Posted by chero

what was tested? the dried blood, the shroud, particles on the shroud?

The shroud materials:

"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates."


Reference took about 10 seconds to find:
Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not. The thing I liked most was it showed the face of what I considered was an older man. Jesus in my research was approx 48 years old when he was crucified, and it looks like a 48 year old to me on the Shroud.
I wonder when they starting thinking Jesus was just 30 years old when he was crucified? A modern forgery definitely would sketch a younger looking man.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not. The thing I liked most was it showed the face of what I considered was an older man. Jesus in my research was approx 48 years old when he was crucified, and it looks like a 48 year old to me on the Shroud.
I wonder when they starting thinking Jesus was just 30 years old when he was crucified? A modern forgery definitely would sketch a younger looking man.

How did you reach the conclusion that Jesus (as mentioned in the Bible) was approximately 48 years?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not. The thing I liked most was it showed the face of what I considered was an older man. Jesus in my research was approx 48 years old when he was crucified, and it looks like a 48 year old to me on the Shroud.
I wonder when they starting thinking Jesus was just 30 years old when he was crucified? A modern forgery definitely would sketch a younger looking man.

See, I'm in the same boat. Well, similar. I don't see the Shroud as a symbol of religious right or proof. what ever it may be, I am not who I am because of it. It would be interesting to say the least if it was indeed as it is said to be.

Part of the issue arises when some claim foul because of contamination. while others say, no. it is what it is. problems occur when explanations in detail to agree with or deny another claim is there or not there. confusing indeed

Originally Posted by PhDemon

See his (now closed) intro thread. He either dreamed it or the voices in his head told him

How many other introductions run to 2 full pages! and Have the glory of being closed by a moderator!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by PhDemon

See his (now closed) intro thread. He either dreamed it or the voices in his head told him

How many other introductions run to 2 full pages! and Have the glory of being closed by a moderator!

I question your motives for being on the Science Forum if your display of pride due to the closure of your (lengthy) introduction thread is genuine.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not. The thing I liked most was it showed the face of what I considered was an older man. Jesus in my research was approx 48 years old when he was crucified, and it looks like a 48 year old to me on the Shroud.
I wonder when they starting thinking Jesus was just 30 years old when he was crucified? A modern forgery definitely would sketch a younger looking man.

How did you reach the conclusion that Jesus (as mentioned in the Bible) was approximately 48 years?

In 1990 I had a revelation that Jesus had a twin brother and that his brother was Saint John (ST John 19:26-27), so I studied the history of that period and found that the only time in history that fits all the aspects of Luke's Gospel plus the writing of the Church Fathers it had to be 17 BC when both John and Jesus were born and if he was crucified in 31 AD I think that works out to about 48 years.
That was further confirmed by research by Irenaeus (sp) that Jesus approached 50 years old and others who report the John live up to Emperor Trajan (103 AD) and that he was 120 years old when he died. I'll get some references if you need them. Some are easy to find but others more difficult.
So even though they say the beloved disciple was younger than Jesus it was only by minutes not by years. He was the younger of the twin boys that Mary gave birth to.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by PhDemon

See his (now closed) intro thread. He either dreamed it or the voices in his head told him

How many other introductions run to 2 full pages! and Have the glory of being closed by a moderator!

I question your motives for being on the Science Forum if your display of pride due to the closure of your (lengthy) introduction thread is genuine.

Didn't you see my apology to Harold - It was going to close before long it had grown too long.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

The length of a thread is no guarantee of quality, look in the trash can, there are many long threads filled with all sorts of shite and it's debunking. Being closed by a moderator is normally a good indicator the thread is a pointless waste of bandwidth, are you here to fill the forum with pages of nonsense (you seem to be implying that a 2 page thread is good even if it has no meaningful content) or have sensible discussions? I've got a sneaking suspicion it's the former.

There are a lot of really important pieces of information in there, but most of it applies to just a few people so most of it would go over the top of the heads of the others, Tranquille, Bells, Beer w/Straw, Kalster will get most of it.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In 1990 I had a revelation...

Oh boy . You do know this is a science forum? Anecdotes, delusions and confirmation bias mean very little outside of your head. Why should anyone take you seriously?

The history research was genuine, it is all recorded in the history books. Didn't you read that I researched it. Research is science isn't it?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In 1990 I had a revelation that Jesus had a twin brother and that his brother was Saint John (ST John 19:26-27), so I studied the history of that period and found that the only time in history that fits all the aspects of Luke's Gospel plus the writing of the Church Fathers it had to be 17 BC when both John and Jesus were born and if he was crucified in 31 AD I think that works out to about 48 years.
That was further confirmed by research by Irenaeus (sp) that Jesus approached 50 years old and others who report the John live up to Emperor Trajan (103 AD) and that he was 120 years old when he died. I'll get some references if you need them. Some are easy to find but others more difficult.
So even though they say the beloved disciple was younger than Jesus it was only by minutes not by years. He was the younger of the twin boys that Mary gave birth to.

Those are some extraordinary claims.
If you can support your ideas with the appropriate (historical) sources, then it is a viewpoint worth considering.

However, it is advisable to make a separate thread about your idea in the Scientific Study of Religion section,
so that members who are more knowledgeable about (Biblical) history can give their input.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Research is science isn't it?

Not always. Depends on the methodology used and if you are using revelation as your starting point I'd say it probably isn't. If your research is genuine why mention "revelations" and other nutjobbery in the first place?

That was the reason I started the history research.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Sorry I'm not sure what your point is here, probably because my head is tuned to Batshit FM...

I'll repeat it for you "in 1990 I had a revelation that Jesus had a twin brother and that his brother was Saint John (ST John 19:26-27), so I studied the history of that period and found that the only time in history that fits all the aspects of Luke's Gospel plus the writing of the Church Fathers it had to be 17 BC when both John and Jesus were born and if he was crucified in 31 AD I think that works out to about 48 years.
That was further confirmed by research by Irenaeus (sp) that Jesus approached 50 years old and others who report the John live up to Emperor Trajan (103 AD) and that he was 120 years old when he died. I'll get some references if you need them. Some are easy to find but others more difficult."

So the revelation preceded the research and was the reason for the research.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In 1990 I had a revelation that Jesus had a twin brother and that his brother was Saint John (ST John 19:26-27), so I studied the history of that period and found that the only time in history that fits all the aspects of Luke's Gospel plus the writing of the Church Fathers it had to be 17 BC when both John and Jesus were born and if he was crucified in 31 AD I think that works out to about 48 years.
That was further confirmed by research by Irenaeus (sp) that Jesus approached 50 years old and others who report the John live up to Emperor Trajan (103 AD) and that he was 120 years old when he died. I'll get some references if you need them. Some are easy to find but others more difficult.
So even though they say the beloved disciple was younger than Jesus it was only by minutes not by years. He was the younger of the twin boys that Mary gave birth to.

Those are some extraordinary claims.
If you can support your ideas with the appropriate (historical) sources, then it is a viewpoint worth considering.

However, it is advisable to make a separate thread about your idea in the Scientific Study of Religion section,
so that members who are more knowledgeable about (Biblical) history can give their input.

I will do that. It is time I found all those references again.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not.

Did you not read the post immediately before this?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Woo, pure and simple then

You are quite blind aren't you!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So the revelation preceded the research and was the reason for the research.

Did you ever get round to looking up Confirmation Bias?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I've watched all those Shroud of Turin videos on YouTube and I'm still undecided as to whether the Shroud is authentic or not.

Did you not read the post immediately before this?

There are arguments for and against. What was said in the post before was one side.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So the revelation preceded the research and was the reason for the research.

Did you ever get round to looking up Confirmation Bias?

When about 10 sources line up and the math comes out correct confirmational bias was overcome. I have looked it up once before, but not recently. So just for you I will do it again.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.

Show me some contradictory evidence please?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

[There are arguments for and against. What was said in the post before was one side.

I would have thought the date pretty much destroyed any possibility of it being authentic. But who knows what goes on in your mind.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

When about 10 sources line up and the math comes out correct confirmational bias was overcome.

Not at all. Who reviewed your work?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

When about 10 sources line up and the math comes out correct confirmational bias was overcome.

Not at all. Who reviewed your work?

Well I will present it on TSF for you guys to review it. A few have read the book (35 pages ) that I wrote but no one has accepted it yet. It is pretty controversial, Christians don't like it, and it doesn't suit atheists either.
Now the file was on a computer and on some back-ups and I'm not sure where they are just now but when I find the file again I will publish it on TSF OK.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

[There are arguments for and against. What was said in the post before was one side.

I would have thought the date pretty much destroyed any possibility of it being authentic. But who knows what goes on in your mind.

Have you spent the time looking at all the documentaries?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Have you spent the time looking at all the documentaries?

Given the date, I don't see much point. Also, documentaries? Perhaps you could provide some links to peer reviewed science that demonstrates it is authentic. Or perhaps not.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Nope just rational, you on the other hand are quite barmy.

Oh Thanks. Evidence is what I want. Please stop attacking me please, refute my claim with evidence please. I spent years gathering evidence pre-internet years and now with the internet the same research could be done in a couple of days. We are in a pretty lucky situation today.
Refute my claims not me please.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Have you spent the time looking at all the documentaries?

Given the date, I don't see much point. Also, documentaries? Perhaps you could provide some links to peer reviewed science that demonstrates it is authentic. Or perhaps not.

Look don't get me wrong. Did I say I thought it was genuine? All I liked about the shroud was that it showed an image of an older man whereas modern forgeries would have been more likely to show a younger man. So if it is medieval did they also think Jesus was crucified at around 50 years of age in that era? That was my point all along.
Video the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Like the evidence in the peer reviewed paper dating the shroud that you have ignored because it doesn't fit your loony beliefs? You have made claims, it's up to you to support them - that's how science works, the default is you are wrong until you can show otherwise. You have not shown anything despite your claims of "research" and "evidence". All you have done is make unsupported claims and shown lunacy and a tendency to woo. It is this tendency and the lack of support for anything you have posted I am attacking not you. Why do cranks always take things so personally?

Loony, lunacy, woo, cranks etc those are the sort of words that should not be used against me. You are the one showing the bias.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Nope, no bias, anyone rational who reads the nonsense you have posted would come to the same conclusion. You ARE a loon, crank, woo-merchant etc. It's not an insult it's a matter of record.

Now you are losing dignity Stop it please.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Sorry, I'm still not tuned to Batshit FM. How does pointing out that you are an irrational loon cause me to lose dignity?

You yelled at me. "ARE" Yelling at a fellow researcher is undignified.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Mmmm, projection maybe - maybe you know this stuff is rubbish and you should be yelled at. All caps would be yelling. The odd word in caps is just for emphasis to my mind (I could have used italics or bold I suppose). The idea of you as a fellow researcher is quite funny though. You probably wouldn't last long in any of the places I've worked if your posts here are the sort of research you produce.

What have you invented? What will you leave behind as your legacy to mankind?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What will you leave behind as your legacy to mankind?

While a propagation of arrant stupidity may class as a legacy it's certainly one we could do without.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

So far?

Dave*Stewart*G-7491-2012*- ResearcherID.com

OK in my introduction I admitted your research fields were different to mine. I have never written up a paper, but I spent time and money developing "grass Juice" as a milk replacer for calves. I still hope to make it work before I too become part of the sod.
I love inventing and creating machines, but it can be expensive exercise if they don't turn out right.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What will you leave behind as your legacy to mankind?

While a propagation of arrant stupidity may class as a legacy it's certainly one we could do without.

Stay in your pond please.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

So far?

Dave*Stewart*G-7491-2012*- ResearcherID.com

When I look at some of the titles of your publications, it appears that the research brings you to some exotic places. Or am I mistaken?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

When I was a bit younger I did aircraft based field work. This ranged from (among other places) Bedford in the UK (not very exotic at all), to the Azores (quite exotic) to Borneo (very exotic) and Niger (just hot and nasty).

Well, those are truly opportunities if your field work brings you to such places.
I wished that I could do that (although I think that a PhD in biochemistry will not result in trips with an aircraft, unless one suddenly discovers enzymes in the troposphere)!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In 1990 I had a revelation that Jesus had a twin brother and that his brother was Saint John (ST John 19:26-27), so I studied the history of that period and found that the only time in history that fits all the aspects of Luke's Gospel plus the writing of the Church Fathers it had to be 17 BC when both John and Jesus were born and if he was crucified in 31 AD I think that works out to about 48 years.
That was further confirmed by research by Irenaeus (sp) that Jesus approached 50 years old and others who report the John live up to Emperor Trajan (103 AD) and that he was 120 years old when he died. I'll get some references if you need them. Some are easy to find but others more difficult.
So even though they say the beloved disciple was younger than Jesus it was only by minutes not by years. He was the younger of the twin boys that Mary gave birth to.

Those are some extraordinary claims.
If you can support your ideas with the appropriate (historical) sources, then it is a viewpoint worth considering.

However, it is advisable to make a separate thread about your idea in the Scientific Study of Religion section,
so that members who are more knowledgeable about (Biblical) history can give their input.

I will do that. It is time I found all those references again.

I did what you suggested http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...orn-twins.html
[h=1]Thread: Was Jesus the firstborn of twins?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You yelled at me. "ARE" Yelling at a fellow researcher is undignified.

Your hallucination makes you a researcher? Or are you a researcher because you chose to act on your hallucinations and delusions?

OK in my introduction I admitted your research fields were different to mine. I have never written up a paper

I thought you claimed to be a scientist and then a researcher What kind of scientist has never written up a paper?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

There are a lot of really important pieces of information in there, but most of it applies to just a few people so most of it would go over the top of the heads of the others, Tranquille, Bells, Beer w/Straw, Kalster will get most of it.

I don't know about the others, but all I'm getting from it is that you should speak to a psychiatrist and get some help.

Lots of help.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by PhDemon

So far?

Dave*Stewart*G-7491-2012*- ResearcherID.com

When I look at some of the titles of your publications, it appears that the research brings you to some exotic places. Or am I mistaken?

It is good to see some genuine people here.

I am Atheist. 100% but yet, still enjoy a good conversation of this subject.. I do not think it fair that Bob gets dumped on from such height..
He has a view, or idea that I and others here find as not supported., but, If he is researching the subject he has written of I can give him room to argue the idea.. This part of biblical history is not my strong point as I have a suspicious view of the written historic record of humanity from the middle east. He might not be a scholar.. yet still that is hardly a requirement for a hypothesis.
I can show a little tolerance of his views.. and will read and see where it goes..
Maybe Bob and I will sit together in the asylum. Pealing grapes and testing wine...

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

There are a lot of really important pieces of information in there, but most of it applies to just a few people so most of it would go over the top of the heads of the others, Tranquille, Bells, Beer w/Straw, Kalster will get most of it.

I don't know about the others, but all I'm getting from it is that you should speak to a psychiatrist and get some help.

Lots of help.

I have been PM-ing Bells and she has given me good advice (being the lawyer that she is). She is better than any psychiatrist, for she is so lovely and sweet. Funny thing was no matter what she'd say I just found myself soothed by her, even she when was ticking me off. I don't believe she could really be mean even if she tried.
But lying was not a problem, and that means she is not on my side.

I think the science community is confident that a cloth found and no doubt how old it might have been could have been used to wrap the dead Jesus.. was there a dead Jesus to start with ?
That it would 'NOT' be marked as found with a image. A painting with the dyes all washed out maybe.. sun bleached vegetable dyes.. ~ There are hundreds of other ways a cloth could show a image without it being used to wrap the dead... I Judge it as rubbish., and I have another idea to share ( but should not...) How old was this Mary girl ? was it a bastard child at all. ? Maybe Joseph had had his moment.. and was the father all along.. How many children did she have.. ? Was it all a construct of the Roman rulers to control the Jewish nation. I have more questions than answers.. yep that's normal... and no, I do not expect you to answer any or all... and I can not back up ANY of my wild imaginings.. can you ?...

Originally Posted by astromark

I think the science community is confident that a cloth found and no doubt how old it might have been could have been used to wrap the dead Jesus.. was there a dead Jesus to start with ?
That it would 'NOT' be marked as found with a image. A painting with the dyes all washed out maybe.. sun bleached vegetable dyes.. ~ There are hundreds of other ways a cloth could show a image without it being used to wrap the dead... I Judge it as rubbish., and I have another idea to share ( but should not...) How old was this Mary girl ? was it a bastard child at all. ? Maybe Joseph had had his moment.. and was the father all along.. How many children did she have.. ? Was it all a construct of the Roman rulers to control the Jewish nation. I have more questions than answers.. yep that's normal... and no, I do not expect you to answer any or all... and I can not back up ANY of my wild imaginings.. can you ?...

There were the customs of the day for that community, and the story in the gospels fit the custom of the time. I have not read or heard of anyone giving an explanation of how the image has been imprinted and it has been incredible to show that it was a negative image. Having the cloth exposed to the air I wonder if that could not result in a higher level of Carbon 14 in the cloth (equilibrating with atmospheric carbon all the time. Could this happen?? hence appearing younger than it really was).

Robittybob1 you've had plenty of time to add science into the discussion, but instead have persisted in nonsense and willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence than the shroud's cloth come from not earlier than about 1200.

Is there any need to keep this thread open?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Robittybob1 you've had plenty of time to add science into the discussion, but instead have persisted in nonsense and willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence than the shroud's cloth come from not earlier than about 1200.

Is there any need to keep this thread open?

I thought Video the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image was scientific. Some organic material buried deep in the ground is obviously not under the same conditions as thin layers of cloth exposed to the atmosphere. I was suggesting there could be reasons, as others claim, that the cloth is older than the Carbon testing dates it at. Do you just ignore their objections?

I think the Shroud of Turin is a real mystery and hence the thread should stay open till the dating is confirmed.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I have not read or heard of anyone giving an explanation of how the image has been imprinted and it has been incredible to show that it was a negative image.

Yeah.
So much for your previous claim to have"spent years gathering evidence".
Did you just stop "gathering evidence" once you had enough to support what you want to believe?
How to Make Your Own Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/craig.pdf

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I have not read or heard of anyone giving an explanation of how the image has been imprinted and it has been incredible to show that it was a negative image.

Yeah.
So much for your previous claim to have"spent years gathering evidence".
Did you just stop "gathering evidence" once you had enough to support what you want to believe?
How to Make Your Own Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/craig.pdf

It would take time to go over those links but from memory I did look at some of them and I wasn't convinced they would come up with the same results.
But that is something to do over the weekend.

Are you convinced the results would be the same?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Robittybob1 you've had plenty of time to add science into the discussion, but instead have persisted in nonsense and willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence than the shroud's cloth come from not earlier than about 1200.

Is there any need to keep this thread open?

I thought Video the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' image was scientific. Some organic material buried deep in the ground is obviously not under the same conditions as thin layers of cloth exposed to the atmosphere. I was suggesting there could be reasons, as others claim, that the cloth is older than the Carbon testing dates it at. Do you just ignore their objections?

I think the Shroud of Turin is a real mystery and hence the thread should stay open till the dating is confirmed.

The dating is confirmed by independent labs. No the youtube wasn't really science.

Not going to allow you to keep flagellating yourself in willful ignorance on this forum. Thread closed.