The Shroud Of Turin

[DVV]

You said that scientists couldn't explain how the shroud could have been created. You were wrong.

It has been recreated. It has been explained. All using materials dating from the medieval times.

You made an inaccurate statement. Whether that article deals with all the points you want it to, is irrelevant. It deals with the specific point: you said it couldn't be explained. Wrong. It can be. It has been.

How do you know, Ally ?

Scientists have spent their whole lives trying to understand how this could have been faked. And they are still baffled.
In your article, what we find is nothing but a self-proclaimed case-solver...

I'd like to have the opinion of "shroud-experts" scientists on Garlaschelli's experiment, and hope you would like too.

But Garlaschelli's position on the C14 dating is already quite telling, I'm afraid, for he is simply denying a scientific established fact : the dating isn't that of the shroud, but that of two different fibres from different times.

[DVV]

I agree with you Ally, 100%.

But then belief in the Turin Shroud is not based on reason but Faith, though only by certain Christians, usually though not exclusively, of the Catholic-- by no means all or even the majority.

No Jonathan, that's not the point.

I'm not saying it's not a fake, I'm saying it's still not proven.

The article provided by Ally don't solve the problem.

All scientists who have spent their lives studying this difficult case honestly admit that they are still at a loss - as scientists.

They have come to realize that the C14 dating is valueless - due to the presence of cotton fibres of which they were not aware at the time of the tests.

And then we have this Professor Garlaschelli who claims to have solved the matter within a week, and says : "My experiment proves that...etc, etc"

More telling is the fact that he states : "If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me."
And this, imo, is strongly indicative that he is dishonest and demagogic.

As if there was a battle between stupid Catholics and scientists...

But that's not the case, not at all. Cotton fibres have been lately detected under microscop, and that makes the dating irrelevant, ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES.

In short : accepting the C14 dating (1260-1390) is everything but scientific.

What we need now is a test of a pure linen sample.

Only then would we know how old is the shroud.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Anyone who has taught science knows how to make a camera obscura that can create similar images. Nothing special is needed except something to set the image. In my case I used an ammonia solution. The image isn't readily visible, but enough light exposure and use of the ammonia, and the image sets and is permanent. Linen should work for this I'd guess. I also imagine that 12th-14th century scientists would use a urine concentrate. This just a guess, and I've only done the camera obscura thing 6 or 7 times, and not on a grand scale, but with small objects like tools and nuts and bolts and such. I see nothing impossible here with my limited knowledge.

Mike

[belinda]

belinda i have always been a firm believer in it and i will not give reasons why i strongly believe in it, and i have had a long interest in it for a very long time. and it is impossible to fake such a thing as the shroud of turin and you and nobody else will ever change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I was wondering if it was something that you had been interested in for a long time or one of those things that you come across and develop an interest in that's all

[Jonathan H]

I agree with you Ally, 100%.

But then belief in the Turin Shroud is not based on reason but Faith, though only by certain Christians, usually though not exclusively, of the Catholic-- by no means all or even the majority.

[Ally]

You said that scientists couldn't explain how the shroud could have been created. You were wrong.

It has been recreated. It has been explained. All using materials dating from the medieval times.

You made an inaccurate statement. Whether that article deals with all the points you want it to, is irrelevant. It deals with the specific point: you said it couldn't be explained. Wrong. It can be. It has been.

[DVV]

Regardless, the point is you said that scientists can't explain how the shroud could have been created in the middle ages. And you were wrong. It has not only been explained, but recreated, all using techniques and materials available in the middle ages.

Sorry Ally, I'm not wrong, but you're too simplistic.
There are many more aspects that the article doesn't deal with.

All the scientists who have thoroughly studied the problem agree that they can't understand how it could have been faked.

And the C14 datation that your article mentions proves that those who wrote it are far from having understood the problem.

Seen ?

[DVV]

I'm off to bed, Cel,
just a quick happy Easter to you too.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

[Ally]

Not really up-to-date, Ally. They still mention the C14 datation (1260-1390) which is completely valueless, as demonstrated, once again, by Rogers himself (see his 2005 article).

Regardless, the point is you said that scientists can't explain how the shroud could have been created in the middle ages. And you were wrong. It has not only been explained, but recreated, all using techniques and materials available in the middle ages.

[Celesta]

My belief is that it was a cloth wrapped over a statue, otherwise hair and flesh wouldn't show up equally well. It was then apparently doctored up with blood stains and the like. The figure never looked proportionate to me either and the man looks about 73 instead of 33 years old so count me well out for now. Nobody protested the carbon 14 until they didn't get the result they wanted either. I have no problem if you think it's real though because there's still some chance that it could be.

Interesting you should say this, Stan. I thought that the black and white image of the face, which has been described as a negative, shown so often in the documentary the other night, resembled Medieval statues. In other words, the face seemed to be in the style prevalent in the Middle Ages and resembled the statues of saints, knights, etc.

[DVV]

Not really up-to-date, Ally. They still mention the C14 datation (1260-1390) which is completely valueless, as demonstrated, once again, by Rogers himself (see his 2005 article).

Happy Easter,
David

[Ally]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

[DVV]

With all due respect, if it could be a fake then surely it probably is a fake?

I beg your pardon ???

The problem with scientists examining the mechanics of such a relic is that that they are not forgers, and therefore are potential marks even at this distance. Their expertise is neither painting nor forgery.

Look, take a cloth and wrap it around your wet head, and then see what sort of image you end up with of your own face?

It ain't that simple, Jonathan. Scientists are baffled, really.

The weight of the evidence -- the Medieval sources, plus modern DNA, plus the lack of sheer physical distortion -- screams hoax.

And I'm screaming it's Easter, my friend !

Give us a break, I beg you...

Amitiés.

[Jonathan H]

With all due respect, if it could be a fake then surely it probably is a fake?

The problem with scientists examining the mechanics of such a relic is that that they are not forgers, and therefore are potential marks even at this distance. Their expertise is neither painting nor forgery.

Look, take a cloth and wrap it around your wet head, and then see what sort of image you end up with of your own face?

The weight of the evidence -- the Medieval sources, plus modern DNA, plus the lack of sheer physical distortion -- screams hoax.

[DVV]

Problem is, Jonathan, that the 21st century scientists can't explain how it could have been faked in the Middle Ages.
Once again, Ray Rogers himself had to make a u-turn once he realized that Romero and Benford were right.
Not to say it can't be a fake, but that if it's a fake, it's not proven yet.

Amitiés,
David