Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #33
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #36
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    That is your interpretation, typically twisted..

    LOL, the irony is stong with this one.


  • Options
    #39
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #40
    OurLadyofKnock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 558 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭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.:):)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #44
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #47
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #48
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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! :D


  • Options
    #49
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


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


  • Options
    #50
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #51
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


    yes, and it seems the only mention of the Supernatural was by a woman who was not involved in the study and only to dismiss the idea


  • Options
    #53
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's a hoax, and has been dated to be a hoax.

    And the team who dated it then declared the tests inaccurate because the corner they dated was part of repairs added much later and not the original cloth.

    They claim, taking into account the age of the newer fabric and the results of the tests, the shroud is at least 2000 years old.


  • Options
    #54
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wibbs wrote: »
    For me it's sufficiently mysterious and impressive and object as a work of man to be getting on with.

    +1. It's a fascinating object no matter who made it. It's mind boggling to think that some lad centuries ago was able to make it and here we are with nuclear weapons and the internet and large hadron colliders etc and still aren't able to explain exactly how it was made.


  • Options
    #55
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    al28283 wrote: »
    If you actually read the article, none of the scientists involved mention anything about anything Supernatural. OP misread the article[/QUOTE]

    Misread the article??? The heading reads: "
    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural



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


  • Options
    #56
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭Duckworth_Luas


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    al28283 wrote: »
    If you actually read the article, none of the scientists involved mention anything about anything Supernatural. OP misread the article[/QUOTE]

    Misread the article??? The heading reads: "
    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural



    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html#disqus_thread
    Again, for the love of God, science or whatever else anyone is having, read the two quotes used in the article! Please!


  • Options
    #57
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    Misread the article??? The heading reads: "
    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural

    I'm embarrassed on your behalf.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9qDZts4ckBo/TroF-iHIaFI/AAAAAAAAAFA/2_IlRe3rCGE/s1600/facepalm.jpg


  • Options
    #58
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,669 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    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? :confused:
    I'll take this under advisement once the OP shows their own scientific credentials and skillset, beyond a talent for opening derisory anti-Catholic flame bait.


  • Options
    #59
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Duckworth_Luas wrote: »
    Again, for the love of God, science or whatever else anyone is having, read the two quotes used in the article! Please!

    To be fair. the title of the article itself is misleading I think.
    The title of the article says "Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural"

    Yet it was Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at Pavia University who mentions "supernatural" - NOT the actual Italian people/scientists who examined it or the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea).

    It was one man from elsewhere (Luigi Garlaschelli) who goes on about supernatural things and no one else

    Bad misleading title (like this thread title) also from the newspaper.


  • Options
    #60
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Seaneh wrote: »
    And the team who dated it then declared the tests inaccurate because the corner they dated was part of repairs added much later and not the original cloth.
    Not quite. It was actually an amateur husband and wife team of Christians who with a bit of interweb research spotted this obvious flaw in the original testing protocols and announced their findings. A couple of scientists became aware of this and have backed those findings. Others have concurred.
    They claim, taking into account the age of the newer fabric and the results of the tests, the shroud is at least 2000 years old.
    Again. Not quite. No 2000 year old claims have been made scientifically. All that can be said it that it's likely the original cloth is older than the 70's/80's carbon dating tests(15th century IIRC?). The best place to take a sample now and would not affect the image is from the burnt carbon patches the cloth sustained in a fire. The big problem is that in the noughties conservators found mould in the wooden case on the shroud and under external professional advice treated it with a chemical that may have destroyed the chance to carbon date it again. Which is a real scientific tragedy. :(


    PS what's also puzzling is why make so detailed and convincing a fake in the first place? One that is outside the parameters of art at the time(no matter what the date is). Not when knocking up some gilded crap would fill church coffers more easily? Indeed early writers on the relic mention that it's not that impressive/how could this come from god kinda thing. Crappier relics made more money for the church.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    prinz wrote: »
    I'm embarrassed on your behalf.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9qDZts4ckBo/TroF-iHIaFI/AAAAAAAAAFA/2_IlRe3rCGE/s1600/facepalm.jpg


    If I need you to do or be anything on my behalf, I'll ask you. Now stop getting so irritated just because I make fun of ridiculous religious beliefs.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: We are no longer living in the era when people like me could be easily shut up if we said anything that offended the kiddy-fiddler church or those who believe in the bilge it peddles. :)

    Mind you, I understand the strong feelings that the Turin Shroud prompts in some. Even Hitler is reputed to have wanted to gain possession of it. They say he also wanted to get hold of the holy grail, which is likewise bound to turn up somewhere sooner or later and have some scienntists --- ;);):

    http://truereligiondebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/christian_hitler.jpg


Advertisement