The Shroud Of Turin

[DVV]

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

Amitiés ma chère,
David

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[BillyE]

I'm getting into this debate a little late, but I'll throw in my two cents (which is probably all it's really worth.)

I'm not going to say if I think it's fake or genuine, because I don't need it to be either to solidify my faith. That's why it's faith!

That being said, out of all the religious artifacts out there (and there are a lot) the shroud had the best chance of being genuine. Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion, and the impressions of plants (and pollen) that only occurr in first century Palestine, but because of the 3-D effects that the shroud produces when photographed with the proper equipment. Sure, that can be reproduced today, and probably could be in the 11th through 12th centuries, but why would they reproduce the effect when they wouldn't know 3-D even existed?

None of this proves the shroud to be fake or real, but it does provide us with an interesting mystery, and isn't that what we all like? Something mysterious?

[Jonathan H]

And if a dating process, which you regarded as kosher, discovered that the Shroud was Medieval in origin -- what then?

[The Good Michael]

That being said, out of all the religious artifacts out there (and there are a lot) the shroud had the best chance of being genuine. Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion

Excuse me! Did you see Jesus' wounds? There is no proof that Jesus ever existed, and you're talking about corresponding wounds. Perfect anatomy? Define perfect anatomy please. I bet my definition is different and has a lot to do with Jessica Alba. You can't bolster an argument by using such terms and including faith as well.

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

no proof that Jesus has ever existed ?
Well...back to the 19th century.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

DVV,

You made a statement. You were wrong. It has been shown, by a scientist, how it could easily have been done. Now I realized a while back that your reasoning skills were never at their best when you argue from a position of "faith" or blind adoration, and we're here again with you kneeling at the shrine of another tainted and unworthy object of your slavering devotion. You seem to enjoy the position, so I'll leave you to it.

BillyE

Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion, and the impressions of plants (and pollen) that only occur in first century Palestine, but because of the 3-D effects that the shroud produces when photographed with the proper equipment. Sure, that can be reproduced today, and probably could be in the 11th through 12th centuries, but why would they reproduce the effect when they wouldn't know 3-D even existed?

I am not entirely sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that because we have technology today that shows something that couldn't have been shown in the 12th century, Jesus must have made this especially for us here in the 21st? Knowing that the technology would exist?

A better question would be, if Jesus were making things for 21st century technology, why not a DVD? Or even better, considering he is supposed to be sole and only path to salvation, why didn't he come in the 21st century when his message could have been beamed around the globe in 20 seconds, rather than coming to earth at a time when the fastest his word would travel is by foot, ensuring that 1600 YEARS would pass before his news even reached all the continents on the planet, thereby ensuring millions and millions of people would die unsaved never having even heard of him a thousand years after his birth?

I mean if we are saying that modern technology was considered back then, I am assuming by Jesus, why would he have bothered being born then anyway? He was condemning millions to die unsaved and rot in hell simply by virtue of not arriving at a time when his word could quickly and easily be heard by all.

The idea that because modern technology can see things that the hoaxers in 1500 couldn't, there is an argument for it being real, is not exactly apt.

[DVV]

You made a statement. You were wrong. It has been shown, by a scientist, how it could easily have been done. Now I realized a while back that your reasoning skills were never at their best when you argue from a position of "faith" or blind adoration, and we're here again with you kneeling at the shrine of another tainted and unworthy object of your slavering devotion. You seem to enjoy the position, so I'll leave you to it.

I realize that you know next to nothing on the subject.
This article is the alpha and the omega on the question for you ?!
Just funny.

I maintain that according to serious scientists, nothing is yet scientifically proven either way.

[The Good Michael]

David,

I didn't say that Jesus didn't exist. I said that there is no proof. We have a brief mention by Josephus after the alleged death of Christ. We have Paul's letters which don't mention and earthly Jesus. We have the gospels that, if they were written by contemporaries, make them ancient men when they were written. The contemporary forms don't exist to this day. We have no contemporary account of his trial and punishment by Pilate, and one would think at least those records should have survived. In short, all there is is hearsay. I believe he existed, but there is no proof.

Mike