SCI/TECH: Scientist Says Turin Shroud Not a Medieval Fake

A scientist at the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory has published a paper that argues that the tests that showed that the Shroud of Turin was a fake were done on patching material from the 1530's. The patch was apparently sewed onto the shroud when it was damaged by fire. Radiocarbon dating done at 3 different labs in 1988 estimated the shrouds age at between 260 and 1390, thus proving it to be a fake.



This is one of those enduring mysteries. I remember the first time I saw it it was one of the short lived Leonard Nimoy series "In Search Of". The Roman Catholic Church interestingly enough does not claim the artifact. At any rate it is unlikely that the owners of the shroud will ever allow a proper test as it would destroy some of the original material and of course it is a big money maker for them as well.

Interesting. I wonder if the owners could be convinced to cut a small piece of the cloth itself for testing. A generous monnetary compensation to them and the church will probably help them make up their minds im sure.

Originally posted by DYepes
Interesting. I wonder if the owners could be convinced to cut a small piece of the cloth itself for testing. A generous monnetary compensation to them and the church will probably help them make up their minds im sure.

They did, but if this article is correct it turned out to be a patch from a previous fire. I doubt highly that they will. If its proved to be false, then they are pretty much done. THey lose thier entire claim to fame as it were and all the $$$ that has rolled in for centuries.

Well, before this story broke, the status of the shroud was that it had been shown to be a fake. So I don't see they have anything to lose having more tests done now.

I'm amazed that nobody realised that the sample taken last time was from a patch used to repair the fire damage. How stupid was that?

It still will not mean anything to the Jews. How convienent to say, "oh that was a patch". Science is based on facts and the only thing that "has" been proven is that the item is a fake.

I read an interesting book a little while back 'The Jesus Conspiracy' by Holger Kersten and Elmar R. Gruber (Element books).

Their conclusion was that the Turin shroud had to be 'proved' a fake as the RC church knows that experts can say with some degree of certainty that the blood flows left on the shroud prove the man in the shroud was alive when he was wrapped in it.

(and the injuries on it being so precisely consistant with the Bible's description of Jesus' injuries as to leave little doubt as to the identity of the man it is claimed to be)

To perpetrate the fraud the RC church made use of 14th century samples of cloth it had plenty of and knew exactly what time it dated from.

(the details of when the samples were available to 'switch' are also given in the book)

Interesting stuff (if that kind of thing grabs you).

But let's tune back into reality a little here.

Basically the whole idea of these kinds of 'proof' in an area meant to be utterly 'faith-based' does seem illogical, worringly needy and wide open to fraud, corruption and abuse.

(not least people selling best-seller books about switched cloth samples, blood flows etc etc )

[edit on 29-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by IntelRetard
It still will not mean anything to the Jews. How convienent to say, "oh that was a patch". Science is based on facts and the only thing that "has" been proven is that the item is a fake.

the shroud is many things, and may or may not be His burial cloth. One thing it most certainly is not is a fake. If not His, it is Jacques DeMolay's shroud, and the method by which the image was imprinted is proof enough that this is no fake anything. If it was a fake, surely the hoaxers 700 yrs. ago would have made it easier to see. Unless of course they knew that photography and negative images would eventually make the image stand out.
lol....................its real. Real what is the question.

Originally posted by lister
I'm amazed that nobody realised that the sample taken last time was from a patch used to repair the fire damage. How stupid was that?

And we should believe a theory from a man at a US Governemnt installation that presumably has never even seen the shroud because....

It's a theory people, and one I personally don't get. His "proof" is as follows...

Radiocarbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.

But Rogers, writing in the scientific review Thermochimica Acta, wrote: "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291." [He loses me here.]

"The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud," he wrote in the article on the Internet (www.sciencedirect.com).

Well now it makes perfect sense (Rant wrote in an article on the Internet).

Pardon my ignorance in the matters of leaps of faith and scientific "blogging" but didn't he just help support the hoax theory? Carbon dating places the shroud's origins between 1260 and 1390. AND, as Herr Doktor Rocket Scientist points out, the dye used is from THAT period.

His conclusion seems quite the leap if that's his premise. They accidentally analyzed the repair? Why would they do that? The fire damamge is as famous as the Shroud. It's always been discussed in every documentary I've ever seen. :shk:

No. Wishful thinking here is all it is.

But wait!

Rogers said one dating test, which measures the gradual disappearance of the compound vanillin in linen, found it was present in the patch analyzed in 1988 but not on the main body of the Shroud.

Unless I'm mistaken, he just admitted a carbon dating test was ALSO done on the main body by the researchers that called it a hoax. Soooooooo, what's the problem with the other swatch?

I'm not saying it is a hoax, but this guy's speculation isn't that inspiring to me. In fact, I've seen many of these questions answered before.

Scientists are at a loss to explain how the image was made and most agree it could not have been painted or printed.

I've seen specials on how anti-Church DaVinci himself might have made it (it does bear a striking resemblance) using early photography techniques he invented. They've recreated it using materials from his time and knowledge he had. Not that big a deal really.

Though this is...

The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud.

The faithful should really take that into consideration.

Why does it have to be Jesus' burial shroud? It couldn't belong to someone else? Wouldnt it also leave the imprint if someone was "beamed" up through the cloth?...Sorry, I just had to.

The written descriptions of the shroud, and artistic depictions date back centuries before Da Vinci. It was looted from Constantinople in 1204, and had been a well known religious relic for many years previous. The thieves did not immediately exclaim their theft, and it remained hidden for a few years afterwards.
imho

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The written descriptions of the shroud, and artistic depictions date back centuries before Da Vinci. It was looted from Constantinople in 1204, and had been a well known religious relic for many years previous. The thieves did not immediately exclaim their theft, and it remained hidden for a few years afterwards.
imho

I shouldn't have made it seem like I supported the Da Vinci hoax theory to the mutual exclusion of all others.

But, I do believe it's understood that the story existed prior to Da Vinci or else he would have had no inspiration to hoax. Just an additional perspective.

For my money, the tantilzing thought that Da Vinci hoaxed it is just as fantastical as it the theory it actually covered the one and only prophet Jesus in the days of his death before appearing to The Magdelene.

Ultimately, we don't know the origins and never will. But multiple possible sources do exist. Another is that it's neither prophetic or a fake as LadyV was saying. Just some dude's death shroud.

I am a firm believer, however, that as in most matters the Catholic Church knows more than it lets on. For them to not claim this relic is daming of origin IMO. These people believe the eucharist becomes flesh in your mouth. They'd love to believe in the shroud, if they could.

Can't say yes or no on this but what I am waiting for is some amazing evidence of DNA on the shroud that will be tested and linked to some race still on the planet. Who would it be ? Maybe Mel Gibson was trying to tell us something?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I read an interesting book a little while back 'The Jesus Conspiracy' by Holger Kersten and Elmar R. Gruber (Element books).

Their conclusion was that the Turin shroud had to be 'proved' a fake as the RC church knows that experts can say with some degree of certainty that the blood flows left on the shroud prove the man in the shroud was alive when he was wrapped in it.

(and the injuries on it being so precisely consistant with the Bible's description of Jesus' injuries as to leave little doubt as to the identity of the man it is claimed to be)

[edit on 29-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

If it was precisely described in the bible, wouldnt that make it so much easier for someone to match the details and make a good fake?

I do not consider myself in the typical sense religious I would love to see some proof behind all the thousands of years of organized religion. One could consider religion, message boards such as ATS, and conspiracy theory in general, to be interactive science fiction.

Originally posted by Flyer

If it was precisely described in the bible, wouldnt that make it so much easier for someone to match the details and make a good fake?

- Well that's one of the really interesting things about this whole thing. There's precise and there's precise.

The precise injuries are indeed described at some length in the Bible and yet things like the actual method of crucifiction were unknown for so long - in fact the widely held beliefs (depicted on so amny medieval paintings etc) was completely wrong (the idea of nails through the hands as so many once believed was the 'method' we now know to be impossible).
Yet the shroud got it right.

Similarly with 'the scourging', widely once thought to have been a term for a serious whipping is actually a whip with metal barbs attached, again something the odd 3d effect in the shroud manages to get right too.

Good mystery, huh?

Knowing hoe barbaric the middle ages and the church were, it wouldnt surprise me if they actually put a prisoner through the abuse listed in the bible. Then it could be a real shroud, just not of Jesus.

Carbon dating the shroud and not the patches is the only way to solve it.

Does a body bleed after it dies?

According to John's testimony, his body was prepared with nyrhh and aloes, this suggests that it would have been cleaned, and considering the use of 100 lbs of these mixtures, then it seems reasonable to test for traces.

But there is the issue of the napkin placed around his head. Was it directly over his head or outside of the body wrap, and if the former, then it stands to reason the head imprint could not be as depicted on the shroud. And would the Jews have kept burial clothing?

The evidence points to Jesus as still being alive, both with the shroud if it belonged to him and within the texts of the gospels.

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by lister
I'm amazed that nobody realised that the sample taken last time was from a patch used to repair the fire damage. How stupid was that?

And we should believe a theory from a man at a US Governemnt installation that presumably has never even seen the shroud because....

RANT, it's good to see we agree of some things

Not only do I have a hard time believing the same Los Alamos that doesn't even know if disks are missing or nonexistant ,
I can't be bothered about a mystery put forth by the RCC. They've had almost 2000 years practice manipulating the masses. Whether or not they stand behind it "officially"

What difference does it make: those who have faith will believe no matter whata science says o:

[edit on 29-1-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

As I pointed out before, what about the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has put no claim on it? For that matter, what of the other relics like the Ark of the Covenant etc etc etc.

The simplest answer is that using old cloth, the 4-500 year old religious equivalent of PT Barnum created an "oddity" to suck in pilgrims touring the holy land.

Rant: Why would the U.S. Government want to cast doubt pro/con either way? Unless this is Raiders of the Lost Ark

[edit on 1/29/05 by FredT]