The Turin Shroud could not have been faked, say scientists

Keylem · 22-12-2011 12:00AM #1

A new study suggests that one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics - the Turin Shroud - is not a medieval forgery and could be the burial robe of Christ.

more.....

soterpisc · 22-12-2011 12:06AM

Correct... Amazing artifact. But the story is not new. i think. Its real, if the carbon test the centre the results would be conclusive..l

Keylem · 22-12-2011 12:11AM

Michael's Voris latest vid on the Turin Shroud findings!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6nuyWTqOtA

Onesimus · 22-12-2011 01:44AM

They carbon dated it before in the 80's and got it wrong by a long shot I think it was 12th century or something came up with. And then they carbon dated it again and saw that they were totally wrong with 12th century haha.

Silly Science! It amazes me how much ''faith'' the world puts into science and man made machines. Whats more shocking to me than theories that it is fake is the Church would actually hand over Our Lords very shroud to be torn to pieces by atheists and agnostics. Kind of reminds me how they threw dice for our Lords clothing in the Gospel. Makes me sick.

Plowman · 22-12-2011 02:29AM

This post has been deleted.

dvpower · 22-12-2011 02:33AM

Keylem wrote: »

A new study suggests that one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics - the Turin Shroud - is not a medieval forgery and could be the burial robe of Christ.

more.....

... nor do they rule it out as being the burial role of Mr John Smith, 124 Station Road, Islington.

georgieporgy · 22-12-2011 09:04AM

dvpower wrote: »

... nor do they rule it out as being the burial role of Mr John Smith, 124 Station Road, Islington.

Islington didn't have a Station Rd in the 12th century so science has at least ruled out that possibility.

soterpisc · 22-12-2011 09:11AM

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its not the science or the scientists who got it wrong. The Carbon test was done from a part from the edge of the shroud. We now know this was cloth that was woven into the shroud.

So the Scientists got the Carbon test Right. Just that subsequent work shows the flaw in what was tested.

There is a wealth of information in the Shroud.

Certainly we know it was not painted.

studiorat · 22-12-2011 09:18AM

how do they know who's image it is on the fabric?

Peregrinus · 22-12-2011 09:41AM

studiorat wrote: »

how do they know who's image it is on the fabric?

They don't. It appears to be the image of a bearded adult male bearing marks suggestive of crucifixion. But there is nothing in the shroud itself to suggest that the image is of any identifiable individual.

If the shroud is a forgery, then obviously the image is that of Jesus of Nazareth (in the sense that there is an image of Jesus of Nazareth in, say, da Vinci's Last Supper, i.e. there is a figure intended to depict Jesus there).

If, on the other hand, the shroud really is the burial shroud of someone who was crucified, then the image is that of the person who was buried in it. But we have no evidence as to who that person was.

In either case, we have no idea how the image was imprinted on the shroud. Whether you think it's a forgery or a relic, the shroud is a fascinating artefact.

Cato Maior · 22-12-2011 10:58AM

Is there a link to the peer-reviewed paper on this, along with confirming experiments by scientists other than those that made up that team?

hivizman · 22-12-2011 01:56PM

Cato Maior wrote: »

Is there a link to the peer-reviewed paper on this, along with confirming experiments by scientists other than those that made up that team?

Here are some relevant references:

Giuseppe Baldacchini, Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra, and Giulio Fanti (2008) "Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud" Applied Optics, Vol. 47, Issue 9, pp. 1278-1285.

Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra, Antonino Santoni, Giulio Fanti, Enrico Nichelatti, and Giuseppe Baldacchini (2010) "Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image" Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, Vol. 54, 040302 (Published online June 15 2010).

A paper that suggests the possibility that the image on the Turin Shroud was created by a medieval artist is:

L. Garlaschelli (2010) "Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image" Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, Vol. 54, 040301 (Published online June 11 2010).

Here are links to the abstracts of the papers:

Link to Baldacchini et al (2008) abstract.

Link to di Lazzaro (2010) and Garlaschelli (2010) abstracts.

A lot of recent research on the Turin Shroud was presented at a conference in 2008, and the papers can be accessed here.

Doc Farrell · 23-12-2011 12:23AM

Www.shroud.com has a lot of information.
Including pollen found by a Swiss forensic criminologist from a plant found in the middle east. The weave of a cloth located to Massina.
It's a fascinating subject worthy of proper investigation. I don't think I have time to follow this thread unfortunately but Ian Wilson is a name worth googling on this one.

jcf · 23-12-2011 05:58PM

Onesimus wrote: »

They carbon dated it before in the 80's and got it wrong by a long shot I think it was 12th century or something came up with. And then they carbon dated it again and saw that they were totally wrong with 12th century haha.

Silly Science! It amazes me how much ''faith'' the world puts into science and man made machines. Whats more shocking to me than theories that it is fake is the Church would actually hand over Our Lords very shroud to be torn to pieces by atheists and agnostics. Kind of reminds me how they threw dice for our Lords clothing in the Gospel. Makes me sick.

Yes this prooves that it is perhaps 2000 years old after all.
Belonged to a man with a beard who was crucified in Jerusalem - so it MUST have been Jesus - has to be that's 100% bullet proof that is .... :rolleyes:

Onesimus · 24-12-2011 12:47AM

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lets face it. The atheist/agnostics were looking forward to looking at the shroud in the bid ( according to them ) to put a final nail in the modern coffin of fantasia that Christianity is false. yet they got a fair buck when they found out it was true. And the fact that these atheists/agnostics figured out it was real doesnt matter. What matters is the disgusting act of the Church to simply hand over Our Lord to the worldly idiots whose sole desire was to see it fail.

I dont want the shroud to be examined. I dont need it to be. I simply have the the simple faith in the tradition that it is indeed authentic shroud of Christ.

The Church fell under secular pressure to hand the shroud over end of story.

Plowman · 24-12-2011 01:42AM

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus · 24-12-2011 02:38AM

Onesimus wrote: »

Lets face it. The atheist/agnostics were looking forward to looking at the shroud in the bid ( according to them ) to put a final nail in the modern coffin of fantasia that Christianity is false.

If the shroud were conclusively shown to be a forgery, that would have no implications at all for the claims of Christianity. I doubt that there are many atheists who think it would, but if there are then they are idiots.

Onesimus wrote: »

What matters is the disgusting act of the Church to simply hand over Our Lord to the worldly idiots whose sole desire was to see it fail.

I dont want the shroud to be examined. I dont need it to be. I simply have the the simple faith in the tradition that it is indeed authentic shroud of Christ.

The Church fell under secular pressure to hand the shroud over end of story.

It’s not the business of the church to protect your “simple faith” in the authenticity of the shroud, Onesimus. The church has always invited, and must always invite, scrutiny of her claims, teachings and traditions, and welcomes the contributions which reason, science, etc can make to our encounter with revelation. You may not want the shroud examined, but the church certainly does.

ironingbored · 24-12-2011 11:02AM

Onesimus wrote: »

Silly Science! It amazes me how much ''faith'' the world puts into science and man made machines.

Says the guy/girl typing away on his laptop, who drives to work, takes penicillin when ill, takes xmas photos on his digital camera, might rely on a CAT scan in the future...:rolleyes:

CMpunked · 24-12-2011 11:58AM

Slightly off topic, but still slightly on topic:

A few years ago i was speaking about carbon dating to another christian and he said that carbon dating is apparently flawed.
Supposedly, a christian scientist took a portion of cooled molten rock from mt etna and had it analysed by a third party. The rock could not have been more than 100 years old, but the results came back that the rock was between 60-80 thousand years old.
When the scientist was asked to explain where he got it and told his story and his motive, he was quietly shunned by the science community and found it hard to find work, ending up teaching science to secondary school students.

I'm not sure how i would go about finding out is this true, but im curious to know has anyone else ever heard the same?

ironingbored · 24-12-2011 12:47PM

CMpunked wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but still slightly on topic:

A few years ago i was speaking about carbon dating to another christian and he said that carbon dating is apparently flawed.
Supposedly, a christian scientist took a portion of cooled molten rock from mt etna and had it analysed by a third party. The rock could not have been more than 100 years old, but the results came back that the rock was between 60-80 thousand years old.
When the scientist was asked to explain where he got it and told his story and his motive, he was quietly shunned by the science community and found it hard to find work, ending up teaching science to secondary school students.

I'm not sure how i would go about finding out is this true, but im curious to know has anyone else ever heard the same?

There are lots of examples of creationists desparately trying to debunk "carbon dating" while ignoring all the other "radioactive clocks" that are available and which compliment each other.

Carbon -14 is only useful for dating relatively recent organic matter as its half life is 5000 years or so. So you wouldn't use "carbon dating" for rocks that are 60,000 yrs. old.

There is an excellent chapter (4) in "The Greatest Show on Earth" which explains the various methods of dating and how scientists date organic material.

By the way, when the Turin Shroud was dated, three separate fragments of the cloth were sent to three independent labs and all three came back with the same date (give or take a 100 years or so).

snafuk35 · 24-12-2011 02:14PM

I dont want the shroud to be examined. I dont need it to be. I simply have the the simple faith in the tradition that it is indeed authentic shroud of Christ.

That is utterly irrational.

Fanny Cradock · 24-12-2011 02:22PM

snafuk35 wrote: »

That is utterly irrational.

I have top agree with snafuk here. It is bizarre that you wouldn't investigate.

JohnMc1 · 25-12-2011 06:27PM

I'm glad our faith has been greatly validated by this but sadly it still won't be the end of the naysayers.

snafuk35 · 25-12-2011 10:27PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I'm glad our faith has been greatly validated by this but sadly it still won't be the end of the naysayers.

It doesn't validate your faith.
All the evidence shows is that this shroud was probably wrapped around a human being and that the image on the body is a photograph of the body.
Nobody is able to explain to any satisfaction how it was a created or when or who the person on the shroud is nor are we ever likely to know.
There is no reason at all to assume this is the shroud mentioned in the Gospels.

gimmebroadband · 26-12-2011 12:08AM

The human being depicted on the shroud has bloodstains pouring from the head as if from a crown of thorns, I have not heard anyone outside of Jesus to wear a crown of thorns during crucifixion! Crowning with thorns wasn't a common practice then, it was used to mock Jesus as King of the Jews.

snafuk35 · 26-12-2011 12:19AM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The human being depicted on the shroud has bloodstains pouring from the head as if from a crown of thorns, I have not heard anyone outside of Jesus to wear a crown of thorns during crucifixion! Crowning with thorns wasn't a common practice then, it was used to mock Jesus as King of the Jews.

Maybe some psychopath tortured and murdered someone? Maybe a Christian was captured by pagans who decided to mock the crucifixion by torturing and murdering him in the manner of Christ? Maybe some sicko did it so he could pass it off as a real relic and get lots of money and prestige? There's any number of non-supernatural explanation before you jump to the conclusion that it is the actual shroud of Jesus. If you arrived in Paris and some guy offered to sell you the Eiffel Tower would you cough up the dough? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. The Turin shroud does not prove anything.

gimmebroadband · 26-12-2011 12:33AM

Keylem wrote: »

Michael's Voris latest vid on the Turin Shroud findings!

A link produced by Kelem shows that It would take 34 thousand billion watts from a VUV light source to re-create that image on the shroud, no such light source has been invented!

Fanny Cradock · 26-12-2011 02:59AM

snafuk35 wrote: »

It doesn't validate your faith.
All the evidence shows is that this shroud was probably wrapped around a human being and that the image on the body is a photograph of the body.
Nobody is able to explain to any satisfaction how it was a created or when or who the person on the shroud is nor are we ever likely to know.
There is no reason at all to assume this is the shroud mentioned in the Gospels.

No, but it does enhance the justification behind it - at least in the minds of some people. While I'm not convinced about the shroud, I gather that anyone of a mind to put weight in church tradition will see this as powerful evidence that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. In other words, there is a tradition going back X amount of years that claims this is the burial shroud of Jesus. You counter this by a hypothesis that might well be very plausible. However, all things being equal you must ask yourself why anyone would choose your version of events over this one.

I'm personally sitting on the fence for this one. Partly because I don't see any Biblical evidence to support the notion that the early Christians would have kept such a thing. And partly because I've never looked into it.

snafuk35 · 26-12-2011 01:02PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, but it does enhance the justification behind it - at least in the minds of some people. While I'm not convinced about the shroud, I gather that anyone of a mind to put weight in church tradition will see this as powerful evidence that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. In other words, there is a tradition going back X amount of years that claims this is the burial shroud of Jesus. You counter this by a hypothesis that might well be very plausible. However, all things being equal you must ask yourself why anyone would choose your version of events over this one.

I'm personally sitting on the fence for this one. Partly because I don't see any Biblical evidence to support the notion that the early Christians would have kept such a thing. And partly because I've never looked into it.

Because there is simply no evidence for their position.
The existence of this cloth with the image of a crucified man proves nothing.
Just because we do not know how it was created proves nothing.
It is an interesting puzzle but the mystery has no answer at the moment.
More investigation may or not supply answers.
But nobody can therefore justifiably jump to entirely unsupported claims about this shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus or that the image was created by supernatural means.

soterpisc · 26-12-2011 01:25PM

snafuk35 wrote: »

Because there is simply no evidence for their position.
The existence of this cloth with the image of a crucified man proves nothing.
Just because we do not know how it was created proves nothing.
It is an interesting puzzle but the mystery has no answer at the moment.
More investigation may or not supply answers.
But nobody can therefore justifiably jump to entirely unsupported claims about this shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus or that the image was created by supernatural means.

Correct... But the odds are that its true..

The Image of Guadalupe in Mexico is another mystery, on both the shroud and image there was not paint used.

Dave! · 26-12-2011 01:28PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, but it does enhance the justification behind it - at least in the minds of some people. While I'm not convinced about the shroud, I gather that anyone of a mind to put weight in church tradition will see this as powerful evidence that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. In other words, there is a tradition going back X amount of years that claims this is the burial shroud of Jesus. You counter this by a hypothesis that might well be very plausible. However, all things being equal you must ask yourself why anyone would choose your version of events over this one.

I'm personally sitting on the fence for this one. Partly because I don't see any Biblical evidence to support the notion that the early Christians would have kept such a thing. And partly because I've never looked into it.

They wouldn't - the correct answer is "we don't know", which was I think snafuk35's point.

The Turin Shroud could not have been faked, say scientists

Comments