Italian scientists claim sky fairy used UV radiation to zap image into Turin Shroud

Ellis Dee

The catholic world's fascination with relics of all kinds has never ceased to amaze me, and it has generated a massive trade that has flourished for the best part of two millennia. Bits of hair, fingernails, skin, bone of this or that supposed holy figure, or things they touched, possessed - and most probably even more fake than a $2 Rolex watch - all coveted collector's items. Indeed, someone pointed out in a recent book that no fewer than five churches and cathedrals in various parts of the world claim to have Christ's foreskin among their collection of relics.:D

Now some Italian scientists claim the sky fairy used UV radiation to create the image in the Turin shroud, a piece of cloth that reputable scientists long ago dismissed as a medieval hoax.

It is part of Berlusconi's legacy that the Italian scientific community has strayed so far from reality, or are we only dealing with a fringe group of nutters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html#disqus_thread

Italian government scientists have claimed to have discovered evidence that a supernatural event formed the image on the Turin Shroud, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
"The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said.
And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."


What next? Irish scientists claim the moving statues in 1985 were caused by the sky fairy using telekinetic techniques?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Absurdum

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What next? Irish scientists claim the moving statues in 1985 were caused by the sky fairy using telekinetic techniques?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

what's the problem with that?

AnonoBoy

Ellis Dee wrote:

Sky fairy

My mate John works for Sky. He's gay.

I hope you're not having a go at him. :mad:

Ellis Dee

AnonoBoy wrote: »

My mate John works for Sky. He's gay.

I hope you're not having a go at him. :mad:

No, but if he has a good looking sister, can I have a go at her?

OurLadyofKnock

There is an oil stain in the Tesco car park in Naas which looks just like Richard Dawkins.

Plazaman

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What next? Irish scientists claim the moving statues in 1985 were caused by the sky fairy using telekinetic techniques?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Seems legit.

I think his name is Terry or Trevor or something like that. Begins with a T anyway.

Son Of A Vidic

I just made a dump that spells out your username OP........shít happens eh?

dlofnep

It's a hoax, and has been dated to be a hoax.

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

a piece of cloth that reputable scientists long ago dismissed as a medieval hoax.

..and yet they still can't actually say conclusively how the image was made. I haven't the foggiest notion of what the hell it is or when it was made but lol at the automatic discrediting of the scientists credentials because they disagree with whatever you are having yourself.

Biggins

Ellis Dee wrote: »

...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html#disqus_thread

Italian government scientists have claimed to have discovered evidence that a supernatural event formed the image on the Turin Shroud, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
"The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said.
And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date."

I'm confused!
Where does it say anything about a "sky fairy" as you mention in the thread title?

prinz

I am also having trouble finding any mention of God aka "the sky fairy" in the article whatsoever...

ejmaztec

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

There is an oil stain in the Tesco car park in Naas which looks just like Richard Dawkins.

Are you sure it's not a skid-mark?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Biggins wrote: »

I'm confused!
Where does it say anything about a "sky fairy" as you mention in the thread title?

You mean you actually read it? With all your AH ecperience?

Ellis Dee

prinz wrote: »

..and yet they still can't actually say conclusively how the image was made. I haven't the foggiest notion of what the hell it is or when it was made but lol at the automatic discrediting of the scientists credentials because they disagree with whatever you are having yourself.

I believe it is the scientists who discredit themselves by jumping to such an absurd and unscientific conclusion. And they are government scientists.;) I'd have thought they have enough problems to solve in Italy without getting involved in superstitious mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Biggins

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You mean you actually read it? With all your AH ecperience?

I give all the benefit of the doubt and read their material.

Ellis Dee

Biggins wrote: »

I'm confused!
Where does it say anything about a "sky fairy" as you mention in the thread title?

I never said the article mentioned a sky fairy. That is my interpretation of what supernatural, i.e. something for which there isn't a scientific explanation, is supposed to mean.;)

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I believe it is the scientists who discredit themselves by jumping to such an absurd and unscientific conclusion. And they are government scientists.;) I'd have thought they have enough problems to solve in Italy without getting involved in superstitious mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

But how many scientists have been able to accurately replicate the image as it is in the shroud? Should be a pretty simple job if it is a medieval hoax no? What exactly is unscientific about the conclusions by the way?

al28283

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I believe it is the scientists who discredit themselves by jumping to such an absurd and unscientific conclusion. And they are government scientists.;) I'd have thought they have enough problems to solve in Italy without getting involved in superstitious mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It doesn't help when you make stuff up about what they said

Duckworth_Luas

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It is part of Berlusconi's legacy that the Italian scientific community has strayed so far from reality, or are we only dealing with a fringe group of nutters?

Strange conclusion to make. A team of scientists used science to give a scientific explaination of how the item could have been created! How are they nutters?

ejmaztec

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I believe it is the scientists who discredit themselves by jumping to such an absurd and unscientific conclusion. And they are government scientists.;) I'd have thought they have enough problems to solve in Italy without getting involved in superstitious mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Strange how scientists telling everyone that supernatural events don't exist are geniuses, yet scientists who say they do are barking mad cretins.

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I never said the article mentioned a sky fairy. That is my interpretation of what supernatural, i.e. something for which there isn't a scientific explanation, is supposed to mean.;)

That's because you are looking at with ignorant blinkers on .

OurLadyofKnock

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I never said the article mentioned a sky fairy. That is my interpretation of what supernatural, i.e. something for which there isn't a scientific explanation, is supposed to mean.;)

So you demanded the Italian scientists hide the evidence/data they uncovered as it does not make you and your atheists agenda feel so secure?

I actually respect the fact they came out and said "we haven't a clue" and then refused to alter or hide the data to fit in with the Richard Dawkins' mentality that all science is infallible. They are real scientists in my book. Good for them. All they said was "super natural" - what is wrong with this?

prinz

Ignoring of course that using the words preter- and supernatural doesn't automatically imply any sort of sky fairy, spaghetti monster or anything else.

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Preternatural: exceeding what is natural or regular : inexplicable by ordinary means

From Merriam-Webster. I'd say medieval hoaxers harnassing and using short directed bursts of UV to make an image definitly departs from what is usual, normal and regular.

Ellis Dee

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Strange conclusion to make. A team of scientists used science to give a scientific explaination of how the item could have been created! How are they nutters?

They are nutters if they believe the explanation is supernatural, because nothing is supernatural, there are just things for which science does not have an explanation - yet!. They would be more credible if they just admitted that they didn't know how the hoax had been perpetrated rather than claiming that some supernatural entity - read the sky fairy - had used a burst of UV radiation.

Don't you find it a bit incredible, by the way, that someone would have gathered up every item that was associated with Christ - that is if there really was such a person way back when - and carefully kept them? Why?

Noopti

Will you quit with the "sky fairy" sh1te already....

Ellis Dee

prinz wrote: »

That's because you are looking at with ignorant blinkers on .

Blinkers are not ignorant, only people can be, and I have not insulted you or any other poster, so please refrain from doing so as well.

OurLadyofKnock

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I believe it is the scientists who discredit themselves by jumping to such an absurd and unscientific conclusion. And they are government scientists.;) I'd have thought they have enough problems to solve in Italy without getting involved in superstitious mumbo-jumbo. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh right I see now. Scientists are supposed to HIDE DATA if it conflicts with the ethos of the scientific principle. They are are not allowed to be honest in their conclusions.

Interesting. Sounds like you are the one with the dogmatic approach here.

ArmaniJeanss

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I never said the article mentioned a sky fairy. That is my interpretation of what supernatural, i.e. something for which there isn't a scientific explanation, is supposed to mean.;)

But the scientists who did the research (Enea institute) never mentioned the word 'supernatural' either, let alone 'sky fairy'.
They seem to have said "theres our research, make of it what you will, its very inconclusive".

And whilat some professor at Pavia university has indeed mentioned the word 'supernatural' , he indicates that he doesn't think it is actually so.

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

... rather than claiming that some supernatural entity - read the sky fairy - had used a burst of UV radiation.

They didn't make that claim. That's your confirmation bias speaking.

Ellis Dee

Noopti wrote: »

Will you quit with the "sky fairy" sh1te already....

Sorry, Father!
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

OurLadyofKnock

Ellis Dee wrote: »

They are nutters if they believe the explanation is supernatural

You are making me want to worship the Sky Fairy.

Duckworth_Luas

Ellis Dee wrote: »

They are nutters if they believe the explanation is supernatural, because nothing is supernatural, there are just things for which science does not have an explanation - yet!. They would be more credible if they just admitted that they didn't know how the hoax had been perpetrated rather than claiming that some supernatural entity - read the sky fairy - had used a burst of UV radiation.

Don't you find it a bit incredible, by the way, that someone would have gathered up every item that was associated with Christ - that is if there really was such a person way back when - and carefully kept them? Why?

I think you need to reread the article!

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Blinkers are not ignorant, only people can be, and I have not insulted you or any other poster, so please refrain from doing so as well.

It wasn't an insult, actually I was trying to be kind. There's only two other explanations.

Ellis Dee

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Oh right I see now. Scientists are supposed to HIDE DATA if it conflicts with the ethos of the scientific principle. They are are not allowed to be honest in their conclusions.

Interesting. Sounds like you are the one with the dogmatic approach here.

That is your interpretation, typically twisted. I do not approve of scientists HIDING data, but find it disturbing when they are very selective in their conclusions.

Biggins

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I never said the article mentioned a sky fairy. That is my interpretation of what supernatural, i.e. something for which there isn't a scientific explanation, is supposed to mean.;)

So your interpretation (weird as it is - there is no logical thinking path that one can construe from their words, that they were referring to "sky fairy!") could be just as inaccurate as anyone else that wishes to submit one about anything...

How you got to them thinking of a "sky fairy" is beyond me!

prinz

My interpretation of what the article says means that the scientists are blaming Luther Blissett. Nobel prize worthy stuff if you ask me.

FloatingVoter

There is nothing supernatural about UV light / energy. We're merely left with a question of who was manipulating it before it was supposedly discovered. My money is on time travellers.

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

That is your interpretation, typically twisted..

LOL, the irony is stong with this one.

Ellis Dee

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

I think you need to reread the article!

OK, I'll read it again and suggest you do so, too.

At the same time, I suggest you read some or all of the reader comments in the Independent article. Many of them are very enlightening:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html#disqus_thread

The one I particularly enjoyed was from the guy who asked why God can't use Facebook or Twitter to communicate with us.


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

OurLadyofKnock

Ellis Dee wrote: »

That is your interpretation, typically twisted. I do not approve of scientists HIDING data, but find it disturbing when they are very selective in their conclusions.

But all science is when you look at it. There are no real facts as such - only agreed upon conclusions. When you really start looking a lot of what they have "proven" they really haven't. They have given the best educated guess - which is fair enough.

To call people "nutters" who do not unconditionally serve the scientific method is no better than people who called atheist and agnostics like me "sinners".

Think about it.

Ellis Dee

FloatingVoter wrote: »

There is nothing supernatural about UV light / energy. We're merely left with a question of who was manipulating it before it was supposedly discovered. My money is on time travellers.

Good point! maybe Doctor Who in his tardis.:):)

prinz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

At the same time, I suggest you read some or all of the reader comments in the Independent article. Many of them are very enlightening...

:pac: Readers comments. The source of enlightenment for the modern man.

Duckworth_Luas

FloatingVoter wrote: »

There is nothing supernatural about UV light / energy. We're merely left with a question of who was manipulating it before it was supposedly discovered. My money is on time travellers.

Follow this link for a proper explaination!

al28283

Ellis Dee wrote: »

OK, I'll read it again and suggest you do so, too.

At the same time, I suggest you read some or all of the reader comments in the Independent article. Many of them are very enlightening:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html#disqus_thread

The one I particularly enjoyed was from the guy who asked why God can't use Facebook or Twitter to communicate with us.


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

This is the problem with this kind of thing. A scientist commented on the what the implications of the study would be. A journalist wrote a badly put together article quoting it. Now you're misreading this badly written article and commenting on it on the internet. And so on and so on



"The implications are... that the image was formed by a burst of UV energy so intense it could only have been supernatural. But I don't think they've done anything of the sort."

That is the thrust of the article

Biggins

FloatingVoter wrote: »

There is nothing supernatural about UV light / energy. We're merely left with a question of who was manipulating it before it was supposedly discovered. My money is on time travellers.

If the Mayans can make a clock that is to this very date, is accurate within 30 seconds and the Egyptians can design and build a building of MANY complex inner and outer mathematical formulas in just 20 years (when in fact given their supposed then technology, it should have taken 200 years!) all things are possible.

And none of them have to include "Sky faeries" or other unknown un-natural elements.

al28283

Biggins wrote: »

If the Mayans can make a clock that is to this very date, is accurate within 30 seconds and the Egyptians can design and build a building of MANY complex inner and outer mathematical formulas in just 20 years (when in fact given their supposed then technology, it should have taken 200 years!) all things are possible.

And none of them have to include "Sky faeries" or other unknown un-natural elements.

The Mayans independently invented the wheel but couldn't think of any uses for it

Ellis Dee

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

You are making me want to worship the Sky Fairy.

Maybe you have been doing too much of it already.:):):) Take a break from it and give reason a chance.:D

Biggins

al28283 wrote: »

The Mayans independently invented the wheel but couldn't think of any uses for it

Well considering they were surrounded by probably jungle, I'd be surprised if they came up with a car for a motorway!

al28283

If you actually read the article, none of the scientists involved mention anything about anything Supernatural. OP misread the article

Biggins

al28283 wrote: »

If you actually read the article, none of the scientists involved mention anything about anything Supernatural. OP misread the article

How the OP went from the contents of the article to then conclude they were speaking of "Sky fairies" is certainly a big jumping conclusion.
I don't see any logical path between the two! Strange - just as strange as the shroud itself!

Wibbs

dlofnep wrote: »

It's a hoax, and has been dated to be a hoax.

Nope, whatever about the hoax aspect, the carbon dating results claiming it as a late medieval fake have been shown to be highly questionable. Short story, the shroud was repaired after some damage and they very finely and expertly inertweaved dyed to match cotton into the original linen. This was the section that was removed for dating purposes. The various dates returned by the different universities and testing centres closely followed the amount of cotton in the samples.

It appears the shroud is older than expected and was made earlier than the renaissance. How much earlier is the thing. The other theory that Leonardo Da Vinci knocked it up is a bit silly as it was on regular public display a century before he was even born.

It's a fascinating artifact IMH. It's history may go back to Byzantine times(4th 5th century) as a similar cloth was described and some evidence of folding remains on the cloth today that would lend some credence to that. The sudarium of Oviedo(biased site but gives a fairly good overview) is another interesting one. Both it and the shroud stand out for a couple of reasons. Number one they're not very impressive. The vast majority of "relics" are so obvious and "impressive" and fake that even a thundering moron would spot them as such today. That this and the shroud could stand up to heavy duty scientific enquiry and still leave unanswered questions is damned impressive.

As a fake/work of art it nearly defies belief in how it was done. At the very latest it was a early medieval artist who did it. If it can be taken back to the Byzantine era it's a truly amazing achievement.


PS I'll not knock the religious people's faith in this object (and the sudarium). Whatever floats your boat. For me it's sufficiently mysterious and impressive and object as a work of man to be getting on with.