Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (46151)	1/31/2000 10:00:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

We should ignore the carbon-14 dating because at least eight DIFFERENT cloths are mentioned in different historical accounts, several of which are known to have existed at the same time, and this MIGHT be one of them? I have no idea where you got this, or what 'eight DIFFERENT cloths' you think you know about. The pro-shroud group is claiming that there are ancient textiles which have C-14 dated much younger than they are known to be. These were textiles taken from Egyptian or Incan burial sites, I don't recall which. And they argue that that the C-14 was picking up a heavy carbon load that the fabric absorbed in the medieval fire that left the scorch marks on the shroud. The people who support the argument that it's genuine overlap alarmingly with people who believe in UFOs and Kirlian photography of auras I'm glad to see that you aren't descending to the level of mockery that I like to inject in my debates.