From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/28/25 6:10 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:   
      
   > Why don't you actually look at the study I provided,   
   > and you'll see that the process was flawed due to   
   > the piece of cloth that was cut from the Shroud.   
      
   For the record:  This is a discussion group. I discuss,   
   often argue but with people. Not "Cites."   
      
   If you feel a cite supports your position, copy & paste   
   the specific words that do so. I honestly hate and have   
   no intentions of reading through "A cite" and guessing   
   at what your views are.   
      
   The claim is that the fire changed the results. But it   
   never has before or since. They prefer using C14 dating   
   on things like charcoal -- burnt wood -- than actual   
   wood. The only danger is that the inside, the middle of   
   a tree is older than the outside. The inner rings are   
   the oldest, the outer are the newest. So if you burn   
   away most of a tree, and you test what used to be deep   
   inside, you're going to get an older date. But only   
   by centuries, right?   
      
   You're pretending that the shroud was dated YOUNGER, not   
   older, because it was burned.   
      
   I've never seen any real world examples where this has   
   happened.   
      
   It's baseless.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)