It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face.
Advertisement:
A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.
Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
News.com.au
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
Yeah, so what? They made some shroud art.
The pollen on the shroud comes from the area where Christ lived.
There are imprints of flowers around the body - a burial custom.
The imprints of the coins over the eye and one coin slipping off the eye,
which I believe are 'dated' with Ceaser on them.
The RU dating was flawed, they took a sample from the part of the
shroud that had been repaired after the fire. Original fibers were not
taken.
www.shroudstory.com...
There are sooooooooo many more facts that support the shroud as
being authentic. yet people continue to want to debunk it. Hey
kiddos ... it very well could be real and the Catholic church has it in
one of it's Cathedrals. Deal ...
(I'm surprised a 'supermod' would post a laughable story and say it's
'confirmation' about the shroud. Is everything alright up there in
Mod-Land? )
[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]
From www.shroudstory.com...
Chemists and art scholars have ruled out the possibility that the Shroud of Turin is a painting or any other known form of art, including photography. MORE ON IT NOT BEING A WORK OF ART
Originally posted by FlyersFan
www.shroudstory.com...
Originally posted by Gazrok
Many false relics were manufactured in the holy lands as crusaders coming home could certainly lend to the authenticity of the items. Indeed, many of the returning soldiers were likely duped by charlatans. So the pollen issue isn't really that impressive..
Originally posted by Gazrok
Many false relics were manufactured in the holy lands as crusaders coming home could certainly lend to the authenticity of the items. Indeed, many of the returning soldiers were likely duped by charlatans. So the pollen issue isn't really that impressive.
The middle ages, (the time the shroud was dated to, regardless of accepting the fire idea or not), was RIFE with such forgeries, from saint's bones to pieces of the "true" cross, etc.
The bottom line, is that if you place a shroud over a body, it will distort and stretch the impression left, and it will look NOTHING like the shroud of Turin. They've tried this numerous times. The shroud was more likely produced with a process more akin to a rubbing of a bas-relief, but with the "blood" mixture applied to the bas-relief (not the cloth), the same way one would do a print (which seems where they went wrong with their re-creation). In fact, I'd wager that many such shrouds were produced in the same way, and sold unscrupulously to Crusaders.
The other issue is that the image of Jesus we see in art, etc. is likely nothing like the man. The bearded, caucasian Christ, is actually an image of King James, not Jesus, and it's far more likely Jesus had far different features, as he was a Jew of the region.
...this really doesn't address any of the points brought up in the website flyersfan pointed out.
This supports a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin's images are the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers of the Shroud of Turin. The color producing chemical process is called a Maillard reaction. This is fully discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Melanoidins, a journal of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (EU, Volume 4, 2003).
By some estimates, as much as 60 percent of the Shroud of Turin sample was new thread, the result of mending in the 16th century. This is sufficient to change the date of a 1st century shroud to the medieval date range arrived at by the carbon 14 dating.
It is quite possible that the Shroud of Turin is a genuine first century burial cloth of a crucifixion victim.
Chiaroscuro in art is an illusion. It is one of many techniques that the artist uses to give a sense of dimensionality and depth to a picture. But computerized image analysis of the images on the Shroud of Turin indicates that what we perceive as the play of light in the images is not and cannot be light. The illusion is an illusion of an illusion. And it does not make sense.
Can you give some detail on the 'stretching' effect?
* The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
* No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.
* The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.
* The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.
* The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).
* Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.
* The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and dime is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.
* The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.
* In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests--for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.
* Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
* In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D. 1260-1390, about die time of the reported forger's confession (ca. A.D. 1355).
Defenders of the shroud's authenticity have rationalizations for each damning piece of evidence. For example, they assert that microbial contamination might have altered the radiocarbon date, although for an error of thirteen centuries, there would have to be twice as much contamination by weight as the cloth itself! Beginning with the desired answer, they work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and--all too often--engaging in pseudoscience.
In contrast, the scientific approach allows the preponderance of evidence to lead to a conclusion: the shroud is the work of a medieval artisan. The various pieces of the puzzle effectively interlock and corroborate each other. In the words of Catholic historian Ulysse Chevalier, who brought to light the documentary evidence of the Shroud's medieval origin, "The history of the shroud constitutes a protracted violation of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books, justice and truth."
nice bibliography of living people who are actually working on the shroud scientifically
Originally posted by Gazrok
Just because I happen not to acknowledge a God, doesn't make me feel threatened by such things though.
Originally posted by Gazrok
The shroud being a fake, wouldn't disprove the account of Christ or the Crucifixion, etc. (and this is coming from an agnostic).
Originally posted by Gazrok
The simple fact for me, is that short of a divine miracle, there's no way one could wrap a body in such a way as to appear how it does on the shroud, but it certainly resembles a bas-relief rubbing using chemical agents of the day.
Originally posted by Gazrok
True, but in addition to theory, we're throwing in known facts also, such as many of the points I cited. Also, one has to ask about the personal bias of such scientists as well. This is just one of those things likely to never be fully known one way or the other.
Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical Christians—both conservative and liberal—are beginning to realize that there is something not easily understood about the Shroud of Turin.
Science cannot rule out a miracle but it can and does rule out fakery.
As you said though, for the faithful, such proof isn't required. I can fully respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.
Originally posted by Gazrok
* The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure
The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.
the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by Gazrok
the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
Then he was wrong. www.shroudstory.com...
Originally posted by Gazrok
as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--
not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
I think some photographic comparisons would help the general public in this one. Ooh! I know! Let's come over your house and try to replicate! I'd offer mine but it's a bit small I think.